Wednesday, November 23, 2011

14 signs that the collapse of the modern world has began

An excellent article has been placed on the KSI forum ( - '14 signs that the collapse of the modern world has began'.  Consistent with our holistic approach to training, we cover all topics that affect your lifes. Not everyone wants to be exposed to this, however that is none of our business. Our business is to stay true to our principles, and this includes teaching holism in life.

As a brief insight into this article, I have provided the 14 key points presented by this author, and a link to the article:

#1 - Tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis –
#2 - The silence of the bees –
#3 - The failure of nuclear science –
#4 - The vicious pursuit of Wikileaks –
#5 - The rise of the medical police state –
#6 - The increasing frequency of food shortages and crop failures -
#7 - The runaway destruction of the world by energy companies -
#8 - The continued GMO contamination of our planet -
#9 - The tyranny and criminal crackdowns targeting real food -
#10 - The escalation of the counterfeiting of the money supply
#11 - The plummeting intelligence of the masses
#12 - The complete and utter fabrication of the mainstream news –
#13 - The ongoing pharmaceutical pollution of our world -
#14 - The radioactive contamination of the global food supply -

Of great interest and relevance directly to the physical preparation world (or more specifically the US-led fitness industry, in my opinion, were points 4 and 14.

#4 - The vicious pursuit of Wikileaks - In an age of such rampant deceit, there is no room for the truth. So those who tell the truth (Wikileaks) are viciously pursued as if they were criminals.

I have spend the last few years drawing attention to the rapid rise of deceit in the US-led fitness industry during the decade 2000-2010.  My book 'Barbells & Bullshit' (  focuses on this, as will the book set for release during 2012 sub-titled 'lifting the veil'.  I say 'If they are lying about x, what else are they lying about?'

Which links to the next points of relevance:

#11 - The plummeting intelligence of the masses - One of the most disturbing signs that we're already in the collapse is the great dumbing-down of the masses. The drooling, CNN-watching television zombies who dominate our landscape offer absolutely nothing of value to the world. They are the "mindless consumers" who get vaccinated, watch television and eat processed, pasteurized junk food. They're on psychiatric meds and believe everything the government tells them. Most of these people, of course, won't make it through the collapse.

I have been stunned by how unintellegient most act, or the absence of critical thinking. The masses of 'professionals' in the US-led fitness industry are being lied to repetitively and they struggle to see through the lies, continuing in their non-thinking role as consumers led by the interests of commerce. In fact, to create an atmostphere of acceptance, the masses are being told its okay to lie, cheat and steal.

There were a few more points made by this author in the ensuring discussion.

"Think about what's happening around you these days. These on our world. These are the End Times of the corporate oligarchy; the monopolare the signs of the last, desperate clutches of a civilization built on utterly unsustainable practices that don't value life istic for-profit corporation machine that destroyed everything in our world in exchange for a slightly higher quarterly earnings report."

This is exactly what I see the in US-led fitness industry - desparate acts by companies and individuals given power in return for their souls, acting in a non-sustainable way using practices that don't value the interests of the industry 'professionals' or the end users.

"In the quest for more money, humanity has sacrificed its food supply, its pollinators, it's oceans, forests and soils. Greed-driven humans have used other humans as medical experiments and cannon fodder."

In my yet-to-released book that will lift the veil on these practices, I ask are these the desperate acts of the end an era, where humans have become so desparate that the envioronment results in some companies and indivduals acting in unscruplous ways, more turning a blind eye to it or endorsing it, and the masses not knowing there is another, better way? Or the start of a whole new era of deciet?

Based on the timings of entering into 2012, I believe and hope that these desparate acts are the former - the last struggles of desparate humans as the era ends.

I am not the only one who sees the possibility of a existance that serves the interests of each and every one of you that may rise from this collapse.

These are the practices of a failed civilization... and one whose days are numbered. Watching it all crumble is far more interesting than watching it continue its destructive ways, of course, because those of us paying attention realize a future civilization must rise up in the place of this one after the collapse.

Some months ago I placed a Youtube clip of a prophecy by an American indigeneous man about the future. His words go something like this - I encourage you to watch the clip.

In conclusion, as I travel through America I know more of it's citizens are 'waking up'. I am not sure if the US-led fitness industry 'professionals' are this enlightened yet, however it will happen. I look forward to the day when education in that industry is based on honesty, not stolen lies.

Full article:

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Update re KSI Coaching Program

With the increased interest in our coaching program, combined with our growing awareness of how unique, special and powerful our coaching programs are, we recognize the need to simply and streamline the program, allowing all to investigate whether this is a fit for them, and progress along the path up to at least the level of longer-term committment, which is usually the major factor that seperates participants in the program.

So click on the link below to check out the current shape of the KSI Coaching Program.
We then encourage you to email us or post on the forum any questions you may have about where you are up to in the program and where you would like to go.

We are preparing to run a Level 1 in MA and CA, USA, in Nov 2011, and then 2012 will be a massive year. For some of you there may be just one or two components that are missing then you will be able to join us in Park City in August 2012 for what is shaping to be the most significant year in our collective lives.

In addition there is the planned 2012 World Tour (yet to be formally announced) which may present some of you with more exposure to our coaching program.

To summarize for you, the Legacy Course is now Level 1, the on-line theory course known as 'Foundations' is Level 2, and the relatively new two day practical course (introduced less than a year ago and another factor that really separates what we do from the imitators – we actually can and do coach athletes, and teach you the same) is Level 3.

Once you have achieved all three you are eligible to join us for the Level 4 – Resident Coaching Camp – a 3 day live-in coaching camp providing you with a variety of coaching experiences you are not likely to get anywhere else in the world, and the final step in the part-time end of the KSI Coaching Program.

From then on, Level 5 is a one year commitment, Level 6 longer, and Level 7 is the domain of those who seek excellence the KSI way. Essentially coaching at a level most dream of.

To summarize the KSI Coaching Program consists of the following levels:

* Level 1 - Legacy Theory Course
* Level 2 - Foundations Theory Course
* Level 3 - Art of Coaching Practical Course
* Level 4 - Resident Coaching Course
* Level 5 - Coach Intern Program
* Level 6 - Coach Mentor Program
* Level 7 - Graduate Coach Program

Essentially each level is a pre-requisite for the next level however we are flexible with the first three, provided they are completed prior to Level 4. This flexibility is necessary considering some of you completed some of these components in previous years.

If you still have questions after reading this summary, please email us at See you at a course soon!

Ian King

Monday, July 25, 2011

Caught in the web of confusion re stretching

I recently received this excellent question that I believe typifies the mess most find themselves in due to the way information is brokered and thinking controlled by those seeking to be the gatekeepers:

Subject: To Ian King, About your article in T-Mag #89 (Lazy Man's Guide..) Please Help

Hello, I really need help about stretching because my mind is a mess because of stretching articles (especially in T-Nation and, forums etc. There are PNF's, dynamic, static; before workouts, after workouts...

My story is this: Last year (2010 May), about the pain in my elbow areas, doctor said that I've tennis elbow. After a long break, I started to work out 2 weeks ago, again. Because I know that I've a problem in my elbow, I worked with light weights. But, after the second workout I felt the same pain again in my elbow area. I went to another doctor this time and he said that I've triceps tendonitis. His recommendation was to do a static stretching after the warm-up (but before weight lifting), 20 rep * 30 sec. I don't really trust Turkish medical system and its doctors but I'm sure he knows much more than I do. Even though the stretching routine he recommended is interesting, I think his diagnosis is correct.

I don't know what to do. A lot of people say "never do static-stretching before the weight-lifting, static stretching makes your muscles weaker" and this makes me think "My muscles and probably tendons are already weak and if I do static-stretching before the workout, can I become more susceptible to injuries?" Lots of other questions arise while reading articles.

What should I do? The fitness world shouldn't be this complicated for a newbie! It's just stretching! :)

Thanks Ian.

xx – I understand your confusion – a product of the information age as I talk about in my video here:

Before I address your email let me categorically state my opinion – any person training who does not stretch, increases the likelihood in injury with each passing day. Of course that is my opinion, however that opinion is based on more experience than most. In fact, I haven’t found too many who have trained more athletes in more sports in more countries for more years. So if you trust experience, that may mean something. If you trust science only, it won’t. If you want to do what everyone else is doing at any given time, it may not.

Let’s talk about science briefly. Lyn Jones, former Australian and US weightlifting coach, said that scientists are historians. I agree. Squatting was not ‘scientifically acceptable’ until the 1990s. Nor were amino acids and protein powders and multi-vitamins. If you were a person who wanted to conform to science you would not have used these exercises or nutrients until the 1990s. That could have been at cost to you in your training had you been at the grindstone for the prior one to two decades.

In the late 1980s, as the first person to do so, I recognized the role of the pause between the eccentric and concentric contractions in strength training. My theory was not scientifically support until the early 1990s. Did that stop thousands of athletes who I trained between these periods from using and benefiting from my hypothesis that they knew to be my three digit timing system? No. Why? Because athletes don’t wait for science to catch up. Science tends to study what athletes are doing to see if it is justifiable. Science isn’t bad. It’s just behind the front line. You need to decide if you want to wait for science of move with earlier indicators.

Now let’s discuss social conformity. You are not alone is seeking to conform. 95% of the population is estimated to share your beliefs. Then there are the trend spotters, who promote training concepts only when they feel there is enough support so they won’t be considered whacky, but not so much awareness that they can still convince the majority they are the saviour, bringing the news to the people. Stretching is the greatest example of this. I have for over 30 years verbally and in writing supported static stretching. The numbers joining me got very thin during the late 1990s and early 2000s when the crowds seeking to stone us got larger. In fact, I don’t know of any other voice who stood firm on this. Now I see the trend spotters rushing to position themselves as experts in static stretching, making and offering ‘how to video’s’ for their commercial gain. The same people who sought the safety and comfort of the dominant paradigm when it wasn’t safe to venture out with an ‘I believe static stretching is great and should be done at the start of training’ t-shirt on.

So you are not alone. You are joined by the masses, and encouraged by the trend spotters seeking to commercially exploit the latest social trends.

Now back to your story. You were sore so you sought to get stronger. You have accepted another popular dominant myth – that if you are injured it is because you are weak. Mmmm. So you sought to strength it and made it worse. No surprise there.

You should go and kiss that doctor. He is a wise man in his recommendation, albeit his strength program is a bit thin on volume.

You are right – the world shouldn’t be complicated – it’s just stretching! I’ve been saying this for decades! Well, in the 1970s and 1980s is was like this. The books were few but there was not fear or pressure to deny the role of static stretching. It was when those who had positioned themselves as experts in training and research were challenged by the rising interest in stretching during the 1990s that they had to delay the inevitable to give themselves a chance to learn more about an area they had neglected, to maybe train so they could have some to and then position themselves as an expert. Well, they have had a decade or so, and now I see they feel more comfortable about the topic, so the tide is turning – the masses are now being slowly given the green light – by the very same people who held up a red light until they could get a handle on it.

So don’t be a bunny. Do what I did. Ignore all advice and experiment in an objective, rational manner on yourself. Come to your own conclusions about training, without fear or favour. Even if these conclusions leave you alienated by society for a year or 2o.

I wrote this in my 2005 philosophy of training book that may assist: *

p. 17… 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.

And this from my 2005 bok about stretching and dogma…

p. 39… Due to the significant absence of flexibility training in training programs to date, most athletes, coaches and other ‘experts’ have never been involved significantly in a stretching training program. Despite this, and despite the obvious physical manifestations of lacking ability to demonstrate range of movement, many form outspoken and dogmatic positions on topics including stretching

You should really listen to at least part 1 of my Barbells and Bullshit audio or DVD program (I have loaded part 1 of this series on the KSI membership site).

Thanks for communicating. You are an excellent example of the average person torn between conforming with current trends and social pressures, and doing what they intuitively suspect may be best for themselves. Will what I wrote help? Not sure – depends whether you want to be part of the 95% victims of social conformity or the 5% victors.

All the best.

Ian King

* not to be confused with the blatant paraphrasing copies like this since been published in places that I thought had more integrity:

… 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]

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

The child and the injury - Pt 2

The older sibling was not at our 10 year old team training. He was waiting at the car with him mother, waiting for his younger brother to finish.

The mother said to me:

"Did you know that ‘Peter’* did a grade two strain of his calf on the weekend?"

The boy’s 12 years old. It’s his second serious injury.

I just looked at the ground, bit my lip, and gently shook my head. What could I say? I hear this every day. It’s monotonous. I care about the kids and the family, however we are fighting a losing battle.
I felt like singing a few lines from the song by the band Queen:

“Another one’s gone, another one’s gone, another one bites the dust….”

The weekend newspaper in my city carried a story by a prominent sports doctor stating statistics show sports injuries are on the rise. He stated ‘We must do more’. More lip service, I thought. Like that’s going to happen. I can guarantee you – like taxes – sports injuries will continue to rise.

I had to say something. How do you break it to a mum that most of what her kids do in sport is doing more harm than good? So I said:

“I was just talking about this the other day with my coaches. We were saying how when we were kids, no one got injuries like the kids today. I played sport before school, at every school break, and after school. I didn’t get my firsts sports injury till my first year of high school, and that was a sprained ankle! I played a lot of sport, but admittedly it was play based, not like the formal training the kids do these days.”

Mum reflected on what I said. Then she asked:

“So why do you think this is?”

I responded:

“Adult training is being taken down the age groups. Every year, more adult like training is being done at an earlier age. The adult training is usually flawed. People think professional athlete training is good, so they imitate it. It rarely is optimal. It’s training that used to be done only at adult ages, so the injuries were coming out at about the same time everyone expected the athlete to retire from old age anyway. But now with the same training being imitated at the younger age groups, the flaws in training are evident well before they get to retire, sometimes even before they get to start their adult career! Surgery for sports-related injury before the young athlete reaches twenty years of age is not uncommon.”

I could see the mother taking it in so I continued.

“Playing sport the way it is being done is not necessarily good for your son. Now, your son is in one of the worst sports – soccer. Two things cause this – soccer’s traditional distain for stretching, and the high impact, high volume multi-directional movements on a hard surface.”

Mum responded:

“We are seeing that now!”

And we moved on with our day. Did I make a difference? I’m not sure. The forces of mainstream values in sport are big and strong – and off track, causing more harm than good.

If you have children - and if they are playing sport – have you thought about this? Are you wondering whether what they are doing is doing more harm long term than good? You should be.

* Not his real name

The child and the injury - Pt 1

There we were, ten or so ten year old boys and myself – in the middle of the oval, in a circle – conducting the pre-training stretching routine as I do. As I have done for over thirty years. Obviously it has evolved somewhat, and this version is adapted to the age group and time frame of the training session.

An older sibling, a boy of twelve years of age, often participates in part of the training with us. He was sitting with us in the circle, but not participating.

My attention was atypically drawn from my own stretching to the status of this boy. I said:

“What are you doing? Why are you not joining in?”

A lot nicer than I would have been with a regular player in any team I work with, and especially an adult athlete.

He said:

“I can’t.”

Genuinely perplexed, I asked:

“What you do you mean ‘you can’t’?”

He said:

“I can’t. I’m not allowed to.”

Wishing to understand him more fully, I continued my questions:

“What do you mean you are not allowed?”

What he was about to say floored me. Luckily I was on the ground anyway!

“I’m can’t stretch before a game. My physiotherapist said so.”

Knowing how inflexible this athlete was, and how much I felt he need to stretch, I continued:

“Why have you been told that?”

To which he said:

“I don’t’ know. They said it was bad for me, and so I can’t do it.”

I did my best to encourage the boy to give stretching a go, but I could see his heart was not in it.

I shook my head and went back to focusing on my team’s needs.

After all, the boy had already had surgery on one knee….

Monday, May 23, 2011

Economic reflections of a coach

I was tucking my son into bed recently when he “Dad, can you explain to me why you say there are big problems with the economy?” As any parent would know, this is not the best time to engage in a high level discussion, however he asked, and I did my best. That was my warm up. Now I hope I have more success explaining my thoughts to bigger people like you.

I believe the economic model we operate under in the western world is flawed, and at risk of breaking. No, I am not against capitalism – just the model of capitalism that’s being used.

In my opinion the cracks in the economy are getting wider, and we may be at serious cross-roads. No, I am not an economist. Just a coach. However as I would encourage you to do, if it affects you – and the economy does - I believe you should research it and form your own opinions, so you are prepared for whatever direction it takes.

In the following paragraphs I will tell you why I believe the economic model we rely on in western world societies is fundamentally flawed, and what I believe the future holds.

A non-sustainable model

In earlier economic models, for example in the agrarian age, I believe that if one hundred people lived in a specific area with zero population grown their lives were sustainable. In our contemporary economic model, they would not be.

We now need population growth to ‘survive’ economically. Population growth comes from immigration or births exceeding deaths. US economic commentator and forecaster Harry Dent amongst many others have done excellent work in helping us understand the correlation between population growth and economic growth.

The question I raise is this – why can’t we sustain on zero population growth? For some reason we cannot. When we experience zero or negative population growth, our economies shrink.

We rely on continuously more members in our societies to sustain the current economic model

I conclude therefore that each working adult, in our current model, is not adequately productive to sustain their and their dependant’s economic position. And therein, in my opinion lies the problem.

To read the full 7-page article, go to

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

The Top Five Dumbest Exercises

My motivation for writing this article is the continual damage to bodies and wasting of time and energy I witness on a daily basis. For the last thirty years I have worked in physical preparation to save people from damaging their bodies and wasting their time with inappropriate training methods and exercises. Perhaps naively I had expected the world to get smarter. Reluctantly I am concluding the world is getting dumber.

I am seeing a growth of literally dumb exercises. The only thing I am left to ponder is who is the dumbest – the people who promote these exercises or the people who do them? Because of my long service in this industry, I have an awareness of the origin and influences of many of these dumb movements. I have my theories as to why these exercises were promoted in the first instance in the manner they are. My theories are not always complimentary.

Read full article

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Burnt at the stake

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,

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 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, 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,

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.


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)

Sunday, May 1, 2011

He never did - a lesson in gratification

A young personal trainer wrote to me and said something along these lines:

I am a (hopefully) up and coming strength coach ….

He never became a strength and conditioning coach. He later wrote to say something like this:

I plan on returning ... in the spring and will be trying to get in touch with the ….team. I feel that my countries poor showing in recent Olympic Games will cause the government to panic and throw money at sports. Hopefully this is where I'll capitalize. As I plan on 'jumping and hoping the net will appear' ...' I need one more piece of advice. If there was one thing that you would recommend I could do to improve my chances/abilities as a strength coach what would it be?

He didn’t get the job as a strength and conditioning coach.

He signed off a subsequent email as:

(Future strength coach to the elite)

That was not to be his future.

He wrote to say:

I look forward to …. Maybe one day coming to Australia to work for you!

He never did.

He then sends me an email that went something like this:

Please find enclosed my CV - if you get a spare minute maybe you could have a look at it and see where I need more qualifications or experience. It needs to be strengthened somehow as I've been unable to get the type of work I'm looking for.

He was right. He wasn’t. His CV said something like this:

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

He never achieved his goal.

He wrote again about his inability to get his desired work:

It is easier for you with an established record to attract new clients than it is for an "outsider" like me to break in. The reason I'm asking is to see where my weaknesses are - what is holding me back in other words as I'm failing to identify it somehow.

He couldn’t understand why he was not succeeding in getting work in his desired are of training athletes. After all, he had been trying for five years now to break into the field. I told him to be patient. After all, I had seen some would-be strength and conditioning coaches battle on for up to ten years to get the kind of work they wanted to, with athletes. I told him he needed to be patient, not driven by the need for instant gratification. I wrote:

A lesson I have learned from watching young strength and conditioning coaches such as yourself is their impatience

He rejected the advice:

I prefer to think of it as DRIVEN as opposed to impatience

I offered to help by make some referrals of athletes to which he accepted:

I would love to work with the Volleyball guys. Please set that up for me. Thanks in advance. You know where I am if you need me.

That didn’t work out.

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

After six years of trying he began to become disillusioned:

I'd like to move out of the personal training field and train athletes exclusively but bills need to be paid.

He considered accepting a job as a head personal trainer in the gym in which he was employed:

I've been at this gym since late Sep and was this week offered the head personal trainer position -- unsure as to whether or not to accept it -- I'm just concerned as to whether or not the move to an administrative position would "hurt" my career in the longer term (i.e. the goal being to train athletes similar to yourself). Your input is as always most welcome.

Instead he opened up a personal training studio of his own.

He continued to dream about furthering himself as a trainer of athletes.

Within the next 12-18 months I intend to have become the Ian King certified strength, speed, flexibility and endurance specialist. I think the title you have in mind is co-ordinator of physical preparation - sounds good to me! Just thought I'd share that! Now that the goal is shared I HAVE to achieve it!!

He didn’t achieve this goal. Nor any of the above.

During the next few years he became a student of marketing, and began his publishing and educational services – seminar presenter and course provider.

This really gives meaning to the saying- ‘He who can’t do teaches’….And provides an excellent lesson of decisions we make between delayed and instant gratification.

One of my favorites was the publication about ‘keys to athletic success’….

Monday, April 25, 2011

The rock and the snake

A few weeks ago I went into my gym and discovered a large puncture hole in the wall.  I seen my share of firearm puncture holes and my first instinct was to wonder what size caliber firearm had been used to pierce the walls, and cause the inward flapping of the wall sheets. I felt under seige.

After closer examination I discovered a sizeable rock on the ground at the base of my work desk. The rock had entered immediately below my work desk, underneath my computur which housed my intellectual property.   It was a shocking feeling, having such a piecing of one's special space, and so close to my computer.

I then realized the rock has been thrown from my lawn tractor during a recent grass cut.  I certainly had not intended to cause the rock to become a projectile, but indirectly I had caused this penetration into my gym. I had trusted my lawn tractor and the ground too much, failing to cut with the outlet shoot facing the other way.

About a week later we discovered a brown snake lying beside the lifting platforn in the gym, meters from where the rock had pierced the walls under my work desk. The snake was dead, however this was not obvious at first as it had no apparent wounds. A closer examination of the snake revealed symmetrical depressions lines across the body. I figured out the snake had entered the gym and hidden under the lifting platform. I had then walked on the platform, killing the snake without even being aware of its presence.  Effortlessly, and as part of my daily movements during training, I had snuffed out the dangerous intruder.

It felt strange knowing that I had been going about my daily training and work unaware that a snake was hiding in my presence.

The promimity of the events in time and space seems beyond a coincidence. The rock had penetrated the walls of the sacred space of my gym in the immediate proximity of my computur containing my intellectual property. Following this a poisonous snake had entered the gym, and been killed through normal daily activity.  These are not your ordinary daily, run-of-the-mill experiences. And they had happened so close together.

The rock and the snake. Interesting....

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

The price the children pay

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.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

I don’t know if you made this up or stole it from someone - but lets credit you anyway

First they steal, meaning they publish material with no credit. Then they continue to take the credit years later - 12 years later in this case.....

This from a person who claims to 'have read everything ever written in this industry':

"This illustrates Cosgrove's short-term overreaction and long term under-reaction concept."
--Boyle, M., The Static Stretching Renaissance,

When will they stop bullshitting? This guy is ether really poorly read or wants to contiue the lie.

The standard reaction to a new idea is over-reaction in the short term, and under-reaction in the long term.  The excitement burns bright until the realisation sinks in that perhaps it is not the panacea for all performance limitations. 
--King, I., 1999, Understanding Plyometrics – A Guide for Athletes and Coaches

Futurists describe human response to a new idea as an over-reaction in the short term and an under-reaction in the long term. so a new idea comes up, like say the Swiss ball and everybody jumps on it, they’re having breakfast on it, they’re having dinner on it, they’re having lunch on it, they are sleeping on it and then they realise that wasn't necessary so they lose interest in. There is a happy medium.
--King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation (DVD)
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. 
--King, I., 2000, in interview with Shugart, C., Fri 29 Dec 2000

It is also appropriate to remind you of the natural human and social reactions – an over-reaction in the short term and an under-reaction in the long term.  When a ‘new’ thing becomes popular, many over-promote it and many over use it. After a while they become disillusioned or bored, and then under-use it. 
--King, I., 2002, Heavy Metal Q & A,, 30 Oct
You may see a swing towards a training trend or piece of training equipment followed by a trend away. This may be the natural realization of the market that the trend or equipment was over-rated. It may be a misunderstanding of the market as to how the trend or equipment is to be used optimally. It may be a reflection of the over-reaction initially followed by an under-reaction that underpins human nature.
--King, I., 2005, The Way of the Physical Preparation Coach
When it comes to training tools or methods, it's natural for people to overreact in the short-term and under-react in the long-term. When a "new" thing becomes popular, many over-promote it and many overuse it. After a while they become disillusioned or bored, and then under-use it. Instead of going through this yo-yo response, I encourage you to objectively analysis any new trend. Ask yourself, "What application would that have for me?"
--King, 2006, over and under-reaction, (written in 2005)

Less than 12 months prior to this information broker crediting his buddy with this concept as above, he was a bit more accurate - he wasn't sure if he had stolen it....:

Boyle: I don’t know, I guess I give you credit for this all the time, I don’t know if you made this up or stole it from someone but you talk about this idea of over-reaction under-reaction sort of phenomenon …

His buddy choose not to clarify or address the point about the origin....:

Cosgrove: …you’re right, we are definitely seeing an over-reaction
--Boyle, M., interviewed by A. Cosgrove, 2009, State of the Industry (audio)

Another case of 'omit to mention' must mean its yours.......

So then it became:

Cosgrove is fond of saying we over-react in the short term and under-react in the long term. ...This illustrates Cosgrove's short-term overreaction and long term under-reaction concept.
--Boyle, M., 2011, The static stretching renaissonce,

I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see lies..after all, apparently it okay to lie:

Here's my premise. 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. 
--Boyle, M., 2006, Telling lies in America,

Or 'stealing'...:

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 in interview by Chris Shugart titled ‘Straight Talk about the Fitness Biz,, Thu, Apr 02 2009

Maybe because there are:

That there are so many fucking arseholes in this industry. And so many weirdoes.
--Cosgrove, A., 2009, in an Interview by Chris Shugart titled The Evil Scot: An Interview with Strength and Conditioning Coach, Alwyn Cosgrove, Wed, Aug 17, 2005

Going beyond the 'stealing' and 'lying' and laying claim for other peoples concepts such as 'over-reaction/under-reaction', how many times are they going to re-use my 2005 paragraphs about 'swings' in over-reaction ..."

You may see a swing towards a training trend or piece of training equipment followed by a trend away. This may be the natural realization of the market that the trend or equipment was over-rated. It may be a misunderstanding of the market as to how the trend or equipment is to be used optimally. It may be a reflection of the over-reaction initially followed by an under-reaction that underpins human nature.
-- King, I., 2005, The Way of the Physical Preparation Coach

Keep your own personal attitude pendulum in the center. In training, nutrition, and pretty much everything, we always see an overreaction to anything new in the short term and an under-reaction in the long term.
-- Cosgrove, A., 2006, 10 Things I've Learned, Feb 20, 2006,

In the field of strength and conditioning the pendulum always swings. ....we over-react in the short term and under-react in the long term. A classic example is the use of, or current disdain for, static stretching.
--Boyle, M., 2010 (?),The Static Stretching Renaissance,

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

The moral and economic decline of a once great nation

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.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Be honest? I'd like to see that....

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.