Surely they can perform better than this!

Many years ago I met a gentleman at a NSCA trade show who owned a major equipment distribution company in the industry, and who had a booth at the trade show. He seemed a genuine person. So recently when I learnt his company was distributing my material – just without my name on it and without any revenues coming to me – I thought - surely they can perform better than this!

After all, isn't that what a reasonable person would do? Surely they would be reasonable.

I said to my IP attorney ‘This deserves a personal approach. I am sure polite, personal and respectful communication can have these sales to cease and desist’.

So I emailed this gentleman. His response was that he didn’t remember me and that he didn’t know what I was talking about. You could expect that – after all he is a busy man. I understand that. So he referred me to one of his employees.

The employee was polite in his communication. He did remind me that they were after all just the distributors. Perhaps that was to infer they had no moral and or legal obligations? And the end result was – nothing.

And I said to myself – surely they can perform better than this!

So are we talking about difficult to see copyright breaches? Or just a few lines in breach?

Here are just a few of the offending sections. And before we go on, I want to stress – I simply included one example from a variety of different topics – in other words, just a sampling. It is unlikely you would have the attention span to review all the offending sections…..


FROM HOW TO WRITE STRENGTH TRAINING PROGRAMS (King, I., 1998)

However if this sequence shows throughout say a 12 week cycle or beyond, you risk developing muscle imbalances. To avoid this, I alternate or reverse the priorities. See this in Table 4. The key here is starting in a non-specific priority and slowly shifting towards specificity in order of priority.
--King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book), Exercise Selection, p. 25

If you continue to follow the exact same movement pattern split for long periods of time, you will very likely develop muscle imbalances and risk injury. To avoid this, alternate (i.e. do the exact opposite movement pattern) or reverse the priorities (i.e. the last movement pattern on the last day becomes the first movement pattern on the first day in the next phase.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 180-181; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 133

…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 (book), Exercise Selection, p. 41

All things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body…
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 66; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 107

Linear periodization : involves a linear progression in lowering reps and increasing load (representing the inverse relationship between volume and intensity).

… The benefits of this method include that it allows the trainee to develop load selection as a progression of reduced reps.

…The disadvantages includes that the early stages may cause a detraining in neural adaptation, and the later stages may cause a detraining in metabolic adaptations.
-- King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book), p. 81

Linear Periodization: involves a linear progression in lowering reps and increasing load (representing the inverse relationship between volume and intensity).

…Advantages: allows the trainee to increase loading regularly and develop load selection as a progression of reduced reps, simply and effectively.

Disadvantages: may cause a detraining effect in neural adaptation in the early stages, and a detraining effect in metabolic adaptation in the later stages.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 172; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 116

4. Priority: This is what I suggest to be the most important and powerful guide in sequencing exercise - do first whatever is the priority of that phase - even if it does ‘break all the rules’.
-- King, I., 1998, How to Write, p. 51

#8: Priority First
As a general rule – the most important qualities/movements to be trained should be trained in the freshest state. Allocate activities in a priority basis to different training days (e.g. number one and two priority need to be trained first on separate days ideally), regardless if this breaks any rules or ‘split’ that you have previously used.
--Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 13

I firmly believe that strength training program design has been historically influenced by anabolic steroids. If you accept the influence that bodybuilding, weightlifting and powerlifting have had on program design, and you understand the role drugs play in these sports, you gain a fuller appreciation of this influence.
-- King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book), p. 141

…the anabolic steroid issue …It would be short-sighted of me to ignore the influence of these drugs on the sport of bodybuilding. If you understand the influence of bodybuilding on general fitness, and you understand the influence of drugs on competitive bodybuilding, hopefully you can see what I am getting at.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 22; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 28

35 Steps to Writing a Strength Training Program
9. Plan alternating muscle group allocation in subsequent phases to receive varied benefits.
--King, I., How to Write Strength Training Programs, p. 23

Eighteen Steps to Programming Success
18. Plan movement pattern allocation in subsequent phases to achieve varied emphasis and benefits.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 180

My next and final step is to divide all the above into unilateral and bilateral, and single and double/multi-joint exercises
--King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, p. 40

Exercises can be progressed as follows:
* Single joint to multiple joint
* Unilateral to bi-lateral.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 64; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 106

Time magnifies errors in training.
--King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book), p. 75

It’s important to recognize that time will magnify any and all errors in training.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 181

Variation may also give unexpected adaptations from repetitions. A trainee pursuing hypertrophy, after spending considerable time training in classic hypertrophy brackets (e.g. 8-12) may experience further significant hypertrophy when changing to a higher or lower rep bracket. Whilst this appears to contradict the above table, it shows that variety alone can accelerate gains. Note this applies in both strength (neural) and size (metabolic) training. The message is clear - irrespective of the specific goal, training in too narrow a rep bracket may not be as effective as alternating or mixing with different rep brackets. The key is not which reps to use, rather how much time to spend in each different rep bracket.
-- King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Repetitions, p. 101

An interesting observation is as regards variety in rep selection. While periodization of training has been well documented, if your goal is just hypertrophy – would staying in the hypertrophy rep range be the best choice? Actually – no, a trainee seems to experience the best gains when using both higher and lower reps than the “goal” rep bracket. Basically the lower reps allow heavier weight to be used, so the athlete returns stronger when he or she returns to their original rep bracket. If we go higher – the athlete experiences a longer time under tension and therefore has more endurance when he or she returns to the original rep bracket. The underlying message is obvious – variety alone can accelerate your process and regardless of your goal, the main premise to understand is that it is not merely which rep brackets to use, but also how long to stay within each rep bracket.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 50; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 90

Number of Reps: Again whilst number of reps is a critical issue, it is limited as a measure of volume unless the majority of exercises involve similar metabolic cost
-- King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Volume, p. 146

I think this [number of reps] is a flawed model as it makes the assumption that all reps are created equal and performed at the same speed.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 49; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 90

A repetition in strength training is one full cycle of the contraction modes involved.
-- King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Volume, p. 99

A repetition….can be thought of as one full cycle of the contraction modes involved.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 48; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 89

The influence of training age on number of sets: a beginner is not likely to need any more than one to two sets per exercise to gain a training effect. It could be argued that the more advanced a trainee becomes, the more sets required. I believe this is true up to a point. There is a point in time where further increases in volume (no. of sets) will not benefit, and the search for further training effects should be limited to increases in intensity.
-- King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Volume, p. 112

Training Age: a beginner to strength training is unlikely to need exposure to more than 1-2 sets of a given exercise….. And clearly the more advanced trainee needs greater volume, however this is only true up to a point. There is definitely a point of diminishing returns when it comes to total sets, and at this point further progress can only be made by increases in intensity.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 52; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 92-93


FROM GET BUFFED! (King, I., 1999)

Another less common criticism (one I used to get more so in the early 1990s) is that it is too complex and the movements should be ‘just done’. Yes, the system does need to be understood by the program writer (I suspect this to be the greatest challenge to these critics); and yes, it does need to be explained to the trainee. No, it doesn’t have to be executed with perfection - it is just a guideline (so don’t get out your metronome!)…
--King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 65

It may appear over-complicated.…A common argument is ‘if I focus on maintaining a 321 speed then I can’t focus on just working hard’.…So the tempo system DOES need to be understood by the coaches and the trainee. Does it need to be executed with a metronome for absolute accuracy? No – it is just a useful guideline.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 57

The first set
The primary effect of the first work set is shock. The body, subject to the laws of homeostasis and innate protective mechanisms, rarely functions optimally during the first work set.
--King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 53-55

…the first set of a workout tends to be a ‘shock’ to the body. The body rarely functions well during the first work set of an exercise.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 54; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 94

The second set
The second work set benefits from the first work set - in what can be described as ‘neural arousal’, or greater neuro-muscular innervation.
--King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 53-55

The second set however tends to benefit from the first set in terms of neural innvervation – the body is ‘awake’ now.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Design Bible, p. 54; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 94

The third and subsequent work sets
In a nut-shell, if you are lifting the same load for say three sets of ten, it is unlikely it was your maximum in set one.
--King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 53-55

…In a nutshell if you are still able to lift the same load for three sets, it is likely that you have selected loads based on the facts you are doing three sets – i.e. you didn’t use your maximum load.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 54; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 94

In my opinion, it is difficult to do more than two sets at the same reps and load if the effort is maximal.
--King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 53-55

In general, I rarely use more than two sets of the same exercise at the same load.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 54; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 94 (NB. In this rare situation, credit was given, but does provide right to copy text verbatim without appropriate referencing methods)

Australian biomechanist Greg Wilson did some great research in the 1990s in quantifying the role of the SSC. He found that if you do a conventional bench press with an eccentric or lowering phase that was about a second, it took a full four second pause in between the eccentric and concentric to completely eliminate the stretch shortening cycle, i.e. if you lower the bar and you rest it on top of your chest for a period of less than four seconds, you're still getting an added boost from all the elastic energy.
--King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!, Chapter 12 – What speed of movement should I use?, p. 63

Research by Greg Wilson in 1991 showed that it took 4 seconds to dissipate the stretch shortening cycle in the bench press. In other words – you were still using momentum if the pause was any less than 4 seconds. All this tells us is that for pure muscle work – pausing makes it harder. For strength and speed work, we should exploit the stretch shortening cycle and have no pause.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 57; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 98

For those concerned about power (rate of force development), I don’t recommend using anything less than a fast or attempted-to-be-fast concentric contraction for some 80-90% of total training time.
--King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 65

For anyone concerned with power or speed, anything less than an explosive (or an attempt to be explosive) is not recommended for the bulk of your training….
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 59

Single leg squat:
stand on 1 leg beside the squat rack or similar. Place the other leg out so that the heel stays just off the ground at all times. Bend the support knee and go down as far as you can whilst keeping your foot flat on the ground. 3 seconds down, no pause, controlled explosive up. Initially I suspect your range will be limited but as you get better at it over time, aim to increase range as well (and maybe even more importantly) as reps. Using your bodyweight only, I expect somewhere between 5-10 reps on day one, and look to use DB’s in one hand if you exceed 15 reps. If this is the case, I have to wonder what you were doing during the earlier part of the workout?! Use the squat rack to hold on to for balance if needed (and you probably will need to) but don’t get sucked into the temptation of using it to pull yourself up…
--King, I., Get Buffed (book), 1999, p. 203-204.

One leg squat:
Stand on 1 leg beside the squat rack or similar. Place the other leg out so that the heel stays just off the ground at all times. Bent the support knee and go down as far as you can whilst keeping your foot flat on the ground. 3 seconds down, no pause, controlled explosive up. Initially I suspect your range will be limited but as you get better at it over time, aim to increase range as well (and maybe even more importantly) as reps. Using your bodyweight only, expect somewhere between 5-10 reps on day one, and look to use DB’s in one hand if you exceed 15 reps. Use the squat rack to hold on to for balance if needed (and you probably will need to) but don’t get sucked into the temptation of using it to pull yourself up.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 83

But if you accept that sport science and sport historians have much in common, you wouldn’t be waiting for full confirmation.
-- King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! (book), Ch 22 – Injury prevention, p. 109

Sports scientists have become sports training historians as the researchers tend to study what coaches are doing anyway.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 57; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 40

There is an incredible trend in strength training to do three sets of every exercises. More specifically, three (or more) sets at the same weight on the same exercise -most commonly, 3 sets of 10! Why is this? I’ve asked myself that question many times, and the only answer I come up with is the power of tradition.


You see, these magic numbers were ‘validated’ way back in the late ‘40’s and early ‘50’s by an American army surgeon by the name of De Lorme when he presented research evidence supporting the use of three sets of ten reps. All credit to the contribution De Lorme made to the science of training, but that was fifty years ago. Yet what do you see almost every time you look at a training program? 3 x 10 (or 15 or 12 or 8, or 6 etc.) ! What do you see every time you browse (I say browse, because invariably there’s nothing that warrants reading) through a mainstream bodybuilding magazine? 3 x 10!
-- King, I., 1999, Get Buffed, p. 52

Despite the absolute limitless combinations of sets and reps that can be performed – three sets of ten remains the single most common set and rep scheme. In the late 1940’s Thomas DeLorme and his Boston team of orthopaedic surgeons were experiencing difficulties rehabilitating World War II Veterans, so they tried a radically new medical approach: Strength training.


Known as the DeLorme-Watkins protocol, the program consisted of one ste of ten reps at 50% of your ten rep max, one set at 75% and one set at 100%. That was it. That was where the industry standard came from. And here we are over sixty years later and this is still the primary set-rep scheme that most trainers are using. In sixty years have we not learned anything.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 36; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 39

Most train hard and long, and with high frequency. Unless one is supported by a incredibly higher recovery system (natural or chemically enhanced), this approach will result in over-training and non-achievement of goals.


… I have very firm beliefs on this topic. Volume and intensity are inversely related. When one is up, the other is forced down. You cannot do a high volume workout (i.e. a high number of sets) and have as high an intensity as you would have with a lower number of sets. Many kid themselves on this, but you cannot avoid reality.
--King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!, p. 33

…but you cannot train hard and long. I agree with this statement. Volume and intensity are inversely related. When one is up, the other is down. Most trainers, quite honestly, seem unaware of this simple concept, or are perhaps in denial as regards this, but it is an irrefutable fact.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 51; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 92


FROM THE FOUNDATIONS OF PHSYICAL PREPARATION (King, I., 1999/2000)

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.
--King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation, Ch 2 – Principles of Training, p. 34.

The principle of recovery and regeneration recognizes that training alone does won’t produce any results. You don’t actually improve as a result of training – you improve as a result of recovering FROM training.
--Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p.43

The principle of specificity suggests that your adaptation to training will be very specific to the nature of the training you are doing. For example if you are doing a number of long, slow jogs per week, your physical capacity to do that specific activity may be enhanced. An acronym that appears to have lost popularity but is quite illustrative of this point is the SAID Principle - specific adaptations to imposed demands.
--King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation, Ch 2 – Principles of Training, p. 35

Specificity
Also known as the SAID principle, which is an acronym for ‘specific adaptation to imposed demand’. This principles suggests that the body adapts to the specific demands placed on it. For example, long slow running will enhance your ability to run long and slow, but is unlikely to enhance your ability to bench press maximal weight. Training programs need to reflect the specific goal that we are trying to achieve.
--Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p.43

Opposite and equal effect
The concept is based on the belief that to every action (in training) there is a positive and a negative outcome, and that often the negative outcome is equal or as powerful as the positive outcome.

… Lets use swimming for example. Most swimming strokes involve repetitive internal rotation of the upper arm. Consequently the internal rotators of the arm/shoulder become shorter and tighter than the external rotators….

The strong message in the equal and opposite effect concept is that every single training method will have a negative effect - and must be countered. This is why ultimately it is not a question of which is the best training method - rather a matter of using a wide range of methods…
--King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation, Ch 2 – Principles of Training, p. 30-31

Equal and Opposite Effect
…This means that in training, there is both a positive and negative outcome to any method used, and that the negative outcome is as equal as the positive one.

…..For example a bench press is a fantastic upper body strength exercise – but when overused it can cause the upper pecs, shoulder and the internal rotators of the arm/shoulder to become shorter and tighter than the external rotators…

…The underlying message of this principle is that every single training method that create a positive change, carries with it an equal negative effect, which must be addressed. As a result, you can see that there cannot be any perfect program – as every program by the nature of this principle will have a negative outcome also.
--Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p.43 (NB. In this rare situation, credit was given, but does provide right to copy text verbatim without appropriate referencing methods)


FROM HOW TO TEACH STRENGTH TRAINING EXERCISES (King, I., 2000)

Slow side raises on Ground:
Lay on your back, knee bent to about 90 degrees, and knees together. Roll the knees over together so that they are on the ground, with the shoulders and upper back still parallel to the ground. Now flex the trunk, basically up towards the roof or sky. I like to have the fingers lightly touching the front of the head, elbow out at 45 degrees from the body, and arm/elbow angle not changing during the lift. The placement of the hands will alter the level of difficulty. The further the hands are above the head, the harder the movement.
-- King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Programs, p. 62

Side raises on Ground:
Lie on your back, knees bent to about 90 degrees and knees together. Roll the knees over together so that they are on the ground with the shoulders and upper back still parallel. Now flex the trunk, basically up towards the roof or sky. I like to have the fingers lightly touching the front of the head, elbow out at 45 degrees from the body, and arm/elbow angle not changing during the lift. The placement of the hands will alter the level of difficulty. The further the hands are above the head, the harder the movement.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 161; Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 161

DB Bench Press :
• lay on your back (supine) on a bench
• dumbbells in each hand
• have the dumbbells facing palm down towards the feet
• now push the dumbbells straight up until the arms are fully extended
• have the dumbbells nearly touching in this top position
• lower down fully to the starting position
-- King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Programs, p. 144

Incline DB Press:
Lie on your back on an Incline bench, with a DB in each hand, palms facing forward towards the feet. Push the dumbbells straight up until the arms are fully extended – have the DB’s nearly touching in this top position. Lower down fully to the start position.
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Program Design Bible, p. 127


FROM ASK THE MASTER (King., I., 2003)

Designing a prioritization program is a real art that few have mastered.…in essence all programs have an imbalance or a prioritization. This come from the sequence of exercises within the workout and week, the allocation of volume, the relative use of intensity, the comparative selection of exercise categories and so on.
--King, I., Ask the Master (book), 2003, Program Design – Strength Training, p. 143

Programs can be prioritized by volume of movement (number of sets and reps), sequence of movement (in the workout, in the week and in the program), and loading of movement (amount of weight involved).
--Cosgrove, A., 2005, The Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 66; Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, p. 107


FROM THE WAY OF THE PHYSICAL PREPARATION COACH (King, I., 2005)

Less is more.
This training principle extends from the above, and reinforces that in many cases, you will get a better training effect from doing a smaller amount of training. That is, that you will get more results when you do less training.
-- King, I., 2005, The Way of the Physical Preparation Coach, Ch 2 – Training Theory, p. 5

#5: Less is more
Training hard does not necessarily equal more return. Performing more challenging exercises does not mean faster results….Select the LEAST challenging variation for the client – that’s where the best return on investment is going to be….Keep it simple. Less is more.”
--Cosgrove, A., and Cosgrove, R., 2009, Fitness Professionals Bible, 2nd Ed., p. 12


CONCLUSION

I can only conclude that the moral compass of this company defines the sale of publications containing extensive copyright breaches as acceptable.

How does this serve the greater good of the industry? I can understand it helps their bottom line. Is this a case of profit before integrity?

Surely they can perform better than this?

There is no such thing as a functional exercise

There is no such thing as a functional exercise or training program.

It’s time to put some perspective on the use of the word ‘functional’, which has become somewhat of ‘catch-cry’ since the start of the 21st century. I believe it has probably gone too far now, and too many reputations on based on it, for the use of the term ‘functional’ to regain perspective. Nevertheless, here is my belief:

There is no such thing as a functional exercise. Nor is there such as thing as a functional training method.

To me, function in an outcome. The ability to perform specific function/s. The adjective interpretation.

To claim an exercise or training method is ‘functional’ is to speak from the ‘prescriptive’ perspective rather than the ‘process’ perspective. It is based on an assumption that every person using the exercise or training method has the same training goal AND responds in a predictable way.

Functional as it is popularly used is nothing more than an extension of the over-application of the term and concept ‘specificity’ – which proceeded ‘functional’ in terms of being the dominant trend term and concept – and also assumes an outcome. To claim an exercise or training method is ‘specific’ relies on an assumption that you know how any given person will respond to the exercise or training method, and that you know in advance that this adaptation will enhance their ability to perform a specific task or sport.

It would appear that any exercise that is uni-lateral, bodyweight only, and standing or sitting on an ‘unstable’ surface is instantly titled ‘functional’ – however if applied to say an elite competitive Olympic weight lifter has as much guaranteed ‘functionalism’ as power clean has to an arm wrestler.

Invariably the assumption is made that if we give a person an apparently specific movement for their training goal (e.g. sport) then the exercise is 'functional'. Let me list some of the flaws:


1. The initial aim of all non-specific (off-field) training should be to counter the damage done by the sport, not rehearse it!

2. For me, the next goal of strength training is to provide a stimulus not found when playing the sport.

3. There is an assumption that the 'apparently specific' movement will actually transfer to improved 'function'. This is a 'prescriptive' approach to training, not a process approach. I support the latter.

4. The exercise is an exercise. It is not functional nor dysfuntional. The outcome or training effect MAY be an increase in function.

5. Does this mean that exercises not considered 'specific' or 'functional' are thereby now dysfunctional?

This mis-use of the term ‘functional’ provides newcomers and students in the industry with a misguided starting point. Unless we delight in misleading others, a serious review of the use if this term is warranted.

The use of the term or concept ‘functional’ has even reached the stage of being used to identify schools of thought or belief – in the same way some refer to there being a ‘one set to failure group’, apparently there is now a ‘functional training group’.

Exercise equipment has suffered to same fate in that during the rise of ‘functional training’ many devices were labelled as bad or causing injuries. Machines are innate. If they are associated with ‘bad’ or ‘injury’ it is a function or outcome of their use, not the machine itself. They are nothing more than an innate object.

There is a time and place for everything. The exercise or training method can be used with an intent to create functional strength (strength that is optimally used by an individual in pursuit of their specific goal), however an exercise or training method is not in itself ‘functional’, nor is it by that definition ‘non-functional’.

To use the term ‘functional’ to label an exercise, training method, program, training device or training philosophy is inappropriate, inaccurate and misleading.

An exercise or training method is not 'functional'. The outcome or training effect MAY be.

NB. Listen to the interview: http://bit.ly/96H45n

What is the future of an industry that condones this type of behavior?

In 1998 and 2000 I published the How to Write and How to Teach books. I then took some of the How to Write content and made it more user-friendly for the end user in Get Buffed! 1999.

Most appreciated the contribution I made through these writings. They were based on my experiences and conclusions from being in the industry for the prior 2 decades, training athletes at the elite level in over 20 different sports in over 10 different countries; and my personal training experiences from the prior 4 decades, inlcuding competing in a variety of sports.

You can imagine the shock when I found extensive portions of my original works published in a variety of publications by the same author.

It's been a learning experience as to what certain individuals are prepared to do to gain short term personal advancement. I had never expected to see this type of behavior in the physical preparation industry. I understand there are many and varied moral values in the world and that the prisons around the world are full of people who make decisions that led to their incarceration. Perhaps it was naivety, perhaps a believe and trust in the goodness within people, but for some reason I just didn't expect to witness such extensive criminal behavior in relation to intellectual property in our industry.

The learning hasn't stopped there either. There has been many lessons about what so called 'professionals' who seek to be 'industry leaders' are willing to do actively or by omission to support this behavior. Again, perhaps I was naive, in thinking that those who seek to be role models would not support these criminal acts.

I understand the readership and the followers of those who choose to flaunt copyright law may have varied value systems - until or unless it was their car being stolen or their home being broken into and items stolen. I suggest that they may at that time get a sudden case of morality and claim at least temporarily it's not right that their possessions be stolen.

Another lesson has been about how organizations - both profit and non-profit - react to these revelations. Again, perhaps naively, I assumed that any organization seeking to position themselves as pillars of the physical preparation industry would distance themselves immediately from this criminal behavior. And certainly any organization seeking to be industry regulators would enact their clearly worded Ethics guidelines and negatively reinforce this behavior.

However the values highlighted by 'Gordon Gecko' in the 1987 movie 'Wall Street' and by former US President Bill Clinton in 1998 during 'Lewinskygate' appear to be inherent in US domestic physical preparation. Values such as: If it's oral it's not immoral (I did not have sexual relations with that women). It's okay to lie if 'no-one gets hurt'. Its only wrong if you get caught. Or, according to one industry regulating organization - its only an ethics violation if a person is convicted.

Which leaves me asking some big questions - What is the future of an industry that condones this type of behavior? Who is being served by the endorsement of this deceit? How does this serve the greatest good of those who have invested unknowingly in this kind of behavior (in part because of those endorse the individuals/ and who knew better, looked the other way), and who made their investment in the hope that they will be led to a better place personally, financially and professionally? Is the global social and economic environment one that will support this supposedly-left-in-the-1980s mentality that greed is good and there are no moral limits in commercial enterprise?

This is just one example....The Bullshitter's Program Design Bible 1st Ed: http://bit.ly/9A1OFt

“It's like lip-synching to someone else's voice and accepting the applause and rewards for yourself”

--Dummer, G. M., & Douglas, M. M. (September, 2008). Plagiarism. Paper presented at Responsible Conduct of Research Workshop, Michigan State University Graduate School, East Lansing, MI.