In the April 2014 issue of International Journal of Exercise Science (Vol. 7 Iss. 2), we published a manuscript entitled “Unrestricted Paleolithic Diet is Associated with Unfavorable Changes to Blood Lipids in Healthy Subjects” (Smith et al.). The article and its authors, as well as the journal and its editors, have been roundly criticized in public forums recently by proponents of the Paleolithic diet, and particularly by those who engage in common forms of high intensity interval training. They have alleged misconduct by the authors, fraud by the Editors, and they have requested a retraction of the article. We have informed them that the article was subject to peer-review, as are all submitted manuscripts, and we also followed up with the authors to investigate their claims of misconduct. The authors were forthright in their answers to us, and indeed stated, appropriately, the limitations to the research in the Discussion section of the paper. Upon suggesting that any further pursuit of alleging research misconduct should be directed towards the Institutional Review Board that approved the research, the critics chose rather to continue espousing their vitriol towards the authors, and towards us as well. To be clear, we will not be bullied by those who know nothing about research design, data collection, inherent limitations in research, peer reviewing, publication, or other components of the general research process, and we will not retract the article. We have worked very hard for nearly eight years to build an international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes quality research. While some articles and their findings may not align with a group’s chosen dogma, that does not give them the right to attempt to discredit the work of dedicated professionals. We at the International Journal of Exercise Science are a community of scholars dedicated to scientific integrity, and in this case, that means supporting our fellow professionals and standing our ground against the unfounded opinions of our critics. As always, thank you for your support of the International Journal of Exercise Science.

T. Scott Lyons, Ph.D.
James W. Navalta, Ph.D.
Co-Editors-in-Chief

It is impossible to fully address this email’s errors on this blog. Nonetheless, we can correct some of Lyons and Navalta’s misinformation. For example, they stated that,

the article and its authors, as well as the journal and its editors, have been roundly criticized in public forums recently by proponents of the Paleolithic diet.

I wrote the articles to which they’re referring. I don’t follow the Paleo diet, nor am I a proponent of it over other nutritional models. The Paleo diet can be consistent with the diet that CrossFit Inc. promotes, but some people following the Paleo diet are not eating consistently with CrossFit’s recommendations. For example, the following meal is from a “Paleo” cookbook:

From the Paleo Chocolate Lover’s Cookbook: http://bit.ly/1DW7KsL

Food quality and quantity both matter. Macronutrient and caloric intake play crucial roles in fueling exercise and determining body-fat levels. Merely eliminating certain food groups is insufficient. A diet consisting exclusively of ribeye steak would perhaps be Paleo, but not effective for promoting health and fitness. The same goes for a diet consisting exclusively of agave nectar and bananas. We did not criticize the study for claiming that adverse health effects resulted from the Paleo diet. If a valid study found that the Paleo diet caused blood lipid levels to worsen, we’d have no problem with it. (We would want to know the macronutrient breakdown before drawing much of a conclusion, though.)

The Basic Logical Fallacy behind the Paleo Fraud

In fact, our problem with the study is simple: Smith and Devor associated adverse blood lipid effects with a diet that the subjects did not follow. Smith and Devor claimed the subjects followed strict Paleo diets. In fact, the subjects did not follow strict Paleo diets. They did not even attempt to. Nor were they even told to.

We have informed them that the article was subject to peer-review, as are all submitted manuscripts, and we also followed up with the authors to investigate their claims of misconduct. The authors were forthright in their answers to us, and indeed stated, appropriately, the limitations to the research in the Discussion section of the paper.

Peer review is not sufficient evidence of validity. Even the NSCA recognizes that. And stopping the investigation after the researchers protested the innocence is absurd. This is just like stopping a murder investigation after the prime suspect declares his innocence. A proper investigation would never have accept the suspects’ denials as fact. Since multiple parties have sued Devor and/or his publisher for scientific fraud, Lyons and Navalta have no legitimate excuse for stopping their investigation here.

“Your honor, we can stop here. The suspect swears he’s innocent …” http://bit.ly/1Bdl35X

You can’t make chocolate pancakes healthy by slapping the Paleo label on them and you can’t make fraudulent research valid by pointing out that it’s peer reviewed. As Russell Berger covered, scientific journals have an acknowledged ethical responsibility to publish valid information and correct errors. The International Journal of Exercise Science, and its editors Lyons and Navalta, failed on both counts.

Editor’s Note:  John T. Weatherly has helped with conditioning programs and research at the U.S. Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs. John is also a frequent commenter and contributor on the Russells’ Blog. Today’s article is the second in John’s series on vibration plates. These plates vibrate like a truck on a highway, allegedly making you fitter. Weatherly exposes the unreliable studies that the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) and others have published on vibration platforms, and the corporate relationships that helped cover up the bad science.

In Part 1 I demonstrated that NSCA and others have published many unreliable research studies on vibration platforms. For example, many studies on Power Plate models did not even test the platforms under loaded conditions to see if they performed as the manufacturers claimed. The research was so bad the International Society of Musculoskeletal and Neuronal Interactions had to publish a paper in 2010 on how to conduct and report WBV studies.

The NSCA’s website still lists Power Plate in its “Corporate Alliance” section: http://bit.ly/1DAoT8G

Power Plate is a corporate ally of the NSCA and also a partner with EXOS (formerly Athletes’ Performance).

The NSCA claims on their website,

As the worldwide authority on strength and conditioning, we support and disseminate research-based knowledge and its practical application to improve athletic performance and fitness.

Really? Why would the NSCA publish numerous unreliable and invalid vibration studies? Was it they just didn’t know any better and made honest mistakes? Or, did the NSCA cover up information on purpose and publish the studies anyway?

You are about to read a sordid account about some of my experiences with the exercise industry.

We’re not sure what’s going on here.

My Background With Vibration

From 2003-2005, I consulted with an exercise company on rotary inertia and vibration. In 2004, I actually met with an ex-Soviet scientist to discuss his work on vibration. This is how I became involved with vibration. During this same time period (2003-2005), I wrote and communicated with Mark Verstegen (President and Founder of Athletes’ Performance, which is now EXOS).

I remember one email in particular with Mark. He said he thought vibration was HUGE and that the CNS and fiber type influenced responses to different frequencies and amplitudes. I believe Mark and Athletes’ Performance (AP) were the first facility in the US to develop a corporate partner relationship with Power Plate in late 2002.

A few years later, after I had briefly represented another company in the vibration industry (I haven’t had a thing to do with vibration companies for at least seven years), I met an individual in New Zealand online named Lloyd Shaw that knew more about actual vibration equipment than anybody I had come in contact with. Keep in mind, I had communicated with an ex-Soviet scientist along with other scientists such as Dr. Patrick Jacobs who was with the Miami Project to Cure Paralysis at the time, and had communicated with somebody recognized as one of the top performance specialists in the world (Mark Verstegen). Lloyd knew more about the actual vibration equipment than any of these other people. Lloyd and I have corresponded ever since.

Lloyd Shaw educated me on the history of Power Plate:

1) In 1999 a group of Dutch and German engineers built a more ergonomic and nicer looking model of Dr. Bosco’s Nemes platform for the retail market.

2) Research and engineering tests were promising but work needed to be done to increase the plate size and power.

3) Power Plate split in 2003 with one partner going to China to get cheap knock-off platforms made.

4) In 2004, Lloyd Shaw, an ex New Zealand Navy Weapons Electrical Mechanic and Mortician, was hired as Power Plate’s Product Manager.

5) Lloyd Shaw failed Power Plate’s new Chinese-made model on all tests. The biggest issue with the Chinese units was they provided random (non-lineal) vibration and dropped all advertised specifications with various loads over 20 Kg on the plates.

6) Lloyd Shaw ordered a recall of the Chinese Power Plate units.

7) Power Plate’s higher ups ignored the recall and sold the machines to the public. Power Plate only advertised the unloaded specifications (not loaded) to people.

8) Power Plate tried to place an injunction on the engineering reports, which included issues with plastic replacing the older steel construction. Faulty electronics and overall design errors meant the machines could never perform to the same level as the original, well-tested, steel machine.

9) Power Plate hired a group of academics to divert attention away from these issues and use the engineering reports, awards and research from the older real machine to sell the new Chinese model.

For more information, check out these links:

http://www.vibration-training-advice.com/the-industry-the-theory-and-trainers-tips/articles-11—20-2/fake-specs-the-true-timeline-of-discovery

http://www.vibration-training-advice.com/consumer-guide-and-safety-program/articles-51—60/the-power-plate-scam-part-1

http://www.vibration-training-advice.com/consumer-guide-and-safety-program/articles-71—80/the-power-plate-scammers-part-2

http://www.vibration-training-advice.com/uploads/pdfs/Evidence-3.pdf

http://www.vibration-training-advice.com/uploads/pdfs/Evidence-2.pdf

Power Plate’s Fake Scientific & Medical Advisory Board

Former ACSM President Dr. Steven Blair: http://bit.ly/1ASk1L0

Power Plate listed individuals on their website that were on Power Plate’s Scientific & Medical Advisory Board. They listed Mark Verstegen, even though Mark’s company was a corporate partner with Power Plate. Power Plate also listed Dr. Steven Blair, a former President of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). They listed Dr. David Nieman (a former VP of the ACSM) as heading the Power Plate Research Center at Appalachian State. Power Plate marketers were so dumb they listed Nieman as a PhD, even though he’s a doctor of public health (DPH). In fact, Power Plate corrected this after I mentioned it online.

Think about this. You have an individual on your board of experts and you can’t even list his doctoral degree correctly. But that’s not the worst of it. Another person Power Plate listed among these experts was Dr. Marco Cardinale.

The problem with Dr. Cardinale is he didn’t know Power Plate was listing him as one of their experts on the Power Plate Scientific & Medical Advisory Board on their website! Lloyd Shaw contacted Dr. Cardinale and Cardinale said he didn’t know about it. So, Power Plate issued an apology to Dr. Cardinale and removed his name from the list of experts on the Power Plate Scientific & Medical Advisory Board. Power Plate also dropped Dr. Steven Blair off the list of experts on the Power Plate Scientific & Medical Advisory Board, for some other reason.

However, the list still included two people that I had interacted with. One was Mark Verstegen. The other was Dr. David Nieman. It was quite interesting that Power Plate stated on its website that Dr. Nieman headed the Power Plate Research Center at Appalachian State. Years earlier, I had helped Dr. Nieman with data collection for a study or two on immune system responses to exercise.

Athletes’ Performance Launched Core Performance

Around this same time period, Athletes’ Performance (AP) was broadening its market from athletes to the general population with the Core Performance brand. They launched coreperformance.com and I went on the discussion forum. Several people started vibration and Power Plate threads that the moderators eventually shut down.

I commented but didn’t start any of the discussions. Mark Verstegen and AP decided to bring Scott Hopson on the forum to answer vibration questions. They billed Scott as Power Plate and AP’s “worldwide educator” on vibration. AP erased almost all of this but what happened is Scott was brought on to answer questions, I asked questions, Scott disappeared, and I was kicked off the forum! Here’s one exchange with Scott Hopson that AP wasn’t able to erase.

At this point any communication between Mark or AP staff and me ended. I found out just asking questions about Power Plate could get a person on Mark and AP’s banned list!

Another pleased Power Plate customer: http://bit.ly/1LSbJFV

The Fake Power Plate Research Center at Appalachian State

I thought it was a conflict of interest for Mark Verstegen to be on Power Plate’s Scientific & Medical Advisory Board when they were corporate partners. However, for a university and a research scientist to do the same thing would be even worse in my view!

A scientist friend of mine had mentioned in a phone conversation he thought Dr. Jeff McBride was really the person in charge of the Power Plate Research Center at Appalachian State. This same individual mentioned he thought what happened is Dr. Nieman agreed to let Power Plate use his name and Appalachian State’s name on their website in order to get funding from Power Plate.

I decided to play dumb and call the Power Plate Research Center at Appalachian State. I talked to a university operator and was told there wasn’t a listing for the Power Plate Research Center. This seemed odd that a research center at a university didn’t have a phone number listed in the university directory. So, I called Dr. Jeff McBride and talked with him. Dr. McBride had written a short review on Vibration Training and Athletic Performance for the NSCA.

I asked Dr. McBride why Power Plate was saying on their website there was a Power Plate Research Center at Appalachian State? Dr. McBride said:

They gave us some money!

McBride said he had been involved with a Power Plate study. Dr. Nieman had conducted a Power Plate study. I believe one other Power Plate study had been done at Appalachian State at the time for a total of three Power Plate studies at the Power Plate Research Center headed by Dr. Nieman at Appalachian State. Dr. McBride said they didn’t have any studies currently going on and none planned for the future. He also said companies like Power Plate come to researchers like him wanting to prove their equipment works. Dr. McBride told me he thought it was a fad. My immediate thought was, how can there be a Power Plate Research Center at Appalachian State if there’s nothing going on, nothing planned for the future, not any phone number, and Dr. McBride thinks it’s a fad? The date of my phone conversation with Dr. Jeff McBride was July 20, 2009.

Over the next few months, I occasionally checked Power Plate’s website. Power Plate still said Dr. David Nieman headed the Power Plate Research Center at Appalachian State on their site. Of course, Power Plate still listed Mark Verstegen and Dr. Nieman on the Power Plate Scientific & Medical Advisory Board.

The Dodgy Drs. Nieman and Gaskill

I decided to contact Dr. Nieman directly about this. Dr. Nieman is highly thought of for his work on exercise and the immune system. He’s received many research grants and awards. In 2013, the American College of Sports Medicine awarded Dr. Nieman “the prestigious Citation Award for his extensive work in health and exercise sciences.”

Dr. Nieman receives an ACSM award: http://healthsciences.appstate.edu/news-events/519

One would think it would be easy to get a simple yes or no about the existence of a Power Plate Research Center headed by Dr. David Nieman from Dr. Nieman himself. You’d also think a person of Dr. Nieman’s stature and accomplishments would freely answer other questions about Power Plate. And heck, I even helped collect data for a study or two of his a long time ago. You’d think he’d answer simple questions in a straightforward manner from a person like me.

I called Dr. Nieman’s office, left messages, called the department secretary, called an office he had in another town, sent emails. I received no answer from Dr. Nieman. On the emails I included Mark Verstegen, Lloyd Shaw, Dr. Steve Fleck (current NSCA President), and Dr. William Kraemer (Editor-in-Chief of JSCR) to name a few of the recipients. I wanted to know if Mark and Dr. Nieman, since they were both on the Power Plate Scientific & Medical Advisory Board, had ever communicated about vibration? I knew Mark wouldn’t answer but was hoping somebody like Dr. Nieman would. I did not get any response.

These are people with whom I’ve interacted. I’ve mentioned Mark and Dr. Nieman but I used to stay in Dr. Fleck’s house some when I was his intern with the USOC many years ago. I actually read Dr. Kraemer’s doctoral dissertation (it was on endogenous opioids, Peptide F which Kraemer discovered, and exercise) at Fleck’s house. I’ve met Kraemer multiple times and corresponded with him about vibration. Dr. Fleck, when I was around him, was a very blunt, upfront type. I like people like that because you know where things stand and what’s going on. And now, Dr. Fleck has become a chameleon that changes colors.

Nobody will answer my questions about vibration research.

The whole Power Plate ordeal not only smelled like a rat, but it was a rat! With no response from Dr. Nieman, I contacted Dr. Paul Gaskill, the Department Chair. I spoke with Dr. Gaskill on the phone and also sent emails again including Drs. Fleck and Kraemer along with Lloyd Shaw among the recipients. At first, Dr. Gaskill said he wasn’t sure if there was a Power Plate Research Center. Can you believe how absurd this was? The Head of the Department doesn’t know if there’s a Power Plate Research Center in existence in his department.

Dr. Gaskill said he would get to the bottom of this by meeting with Drs. Nieman and McBride and get back to me. It took continuous prodding on my part from 1/19/2010 to 2/26/2010 to finally get a response from Dr. Gaskill. Dr. Gaskill finally said there was nothing currently going on at the Power Plate Research Center at Appalachian State headed by Dr. Nieman but Dr. Nieman would be taking a Power Plate to the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill for a study in the fall.

Now, just think about this a moment folks. These are research scientists (Drs. Nieman and McBride) and the Department Head (Dr. Gaskill) at a university and they avoided answering simple questions about their publicly asserted research.

Drs. Fleck and Kraemer

William Kraemer of the NSCA’s Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.

I thought people like Drs. Fleck and Kraemer would do something. They knew about the fake Power Plate Scientific and Medical Advisory Board. They knew how Mark Verstegen and Athletes’ Performance had banned me for simply asking questions about Power Plate on coreperformance.com. Of course, Dr. Fleck wasn’t NSCA President at that time but Dr. Kraemer was Editor-in-Chief of the NSCA’s Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.

Kraemer and Fleck did nothing! Dr. Kraemer even said in this 2011 New York Times article he didn’t know much about prescribing vibration exercise. The article stated:

“We don’t know a lot about prescribing it,” Dr. Kraemer said. “There’s the rub.”

And yet it is being used many times without an understanding of how to do it best or what the long-term training effects will be.

“Research,” Dr. Kraemer said, “is trying to catch up.”

Heck, the NSCA still has Power Plate as a corporate ally in spite of all of this, and even though Power Plate is being liquidated and is under administration.

Power Plate is currently a part of Performance Health Systems, LLC.

Richard Beddie and REPS in New Zealand

Even with Lloyd Shaw in NZ exposing Power Plate scams and liquidating Power Plate, Richard Beddie’s REPS lists Power Plate seminars for continuing education credits.

Beddie approves of Power Plate after all the bad research and Power Plate scams, but he wants CrossFit L1 Trainers to pay REPS to stop getting critical press? Prior articles on this blog have pointed out that Beddie’s behavior is tantamount to extortion.

Richard Beddie of REPS New Zealand has a relationship with Power Plate.

Giant Web of Deceit

I have demonstrated in these two articles that exercise scientists conducted numerous studies on Power Plate models without testing the platforms under loaded conditions. Somehow peer reviewed journals such as the NSCA’s JSCR published these unreliable and invalid studies. Both the NSCA and EXOS (formerly Athletes’ Performance) are and have been corporate partners with Power Plate. Richard Beddie’s REPS is also connected with Power Plate for continuing education credits. Furthermore, this series has revealed a fake Power Plate Scientific and Medical Advisory Board and a fake Power Plate Research Center at Appalachian State headed by ACSM fellow and former VP of the ACSM, Dr. David Nieman. The supposed authorities of exercise science could have stood up and stopped this scam. They did nothing. This includes NSCA President Dr. Steve Fleck and NSCA’s JSCR Editor-in-Chief Dr. William Kraemer.

But, what should we expect from an industry that gives presentations showing researchers how to lie and cover-up?

All decent, honest people should be repulsed by this behavior and organizations like the NSCA that tolerate it. They cannot be trusted.

Image by Dr. Lon Kilgore.

About the Author: John T. Weatherly has undergraduate and graduate degrees in exercise science. He was a research assistant to the former Head of Sports Physiology for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) and has helped with conditioning programs for athletes in Olympic sports as well as professional baseball, college football, and an NBA player. In the 90’s, John published and reviewed articles for the NSCA and was an NSCA media contact on the sport of baseball. He helped initiate the first study on a rotary inertia exercise device at the University of Southern California (USC) and has consulted with the exercise industry on various topics, including vibration.

Photo Credit: http://blog.fattonybmx.com

The OC Throwdown is a fitness competition organized by a company called THE OFFICIAL OCT LLC., owned by a Mr. Darren McGuire. Sadly the OCT is probably best known as the place where in 2014, Kevin Ogar was paralyzed.

While the press has frequently mischaracterized the OCT as a “CrossFit” competition, CrossFit Inc. has no affiliation with the OCT, or Darren McGuire. Like other imitators of the CrossFit Games, the OCT is mistaken as somehow representative of the CrossFit brand. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. See here, and here.

Kevin Ogar himself has pointed out that he was not “doing CrossFit” at the time of his injury and credits CrossFit with helping him recover from his traumatic injury. Currently, there are only two publicly available, low-quality videos of Ogar’s injury.  Many who have watched these speculate that the inventory of weights stacked behind him caused his paralysis.

The 2015 OCT featured this hurdle event, which lead to one participant breaking his back. Video from the event depicts so many dramatic falls that it was featured on the season premier of Tosh.0. Like so many others, the show’s writers refer to the spectacle as “CrossFit.”

In October of 2014, Greg Glassman made the following public statement:

“I have held off from publicly posting about Kevin Ogar and the OCT for a while. Kevin and I were promised a copy of videotape of the event and waited, prepared to pay for a video analysis and reconstruction expert. Whatever lessons there were to be learned, I wanted to share with our community. We had nothing to do with the event, yet Kevin’s injury is consistently attributed to CrossFit, Inc. Our position is that whatever happened, both sponsors and OCT have an obligation to take care of the athletes who participate. HQ has and will continue to stand with Kevin and help him. Those running the OCT should do the same. It’s the right thing to do.”

—Greg Glassman, CrossFit Inc. Founder and CEO

To this day, over a year after Greg Glassman’s initial request, Darren McGuire has refused to release the video of Ogar’s accident. He has also falsely claimed (59:25) that CrossFit HQ did not contact him after the Ogar incident. In response, Greg Glassman has asked us to release the following email exchange:

Darren McGuire promised to release the video of Ogar’s injury, but still has not done so. McGuire has also tried to cover up his failure to follow through, falsely claiming that CrossFit HQ didn’t contact him after the 2014 OC Throwdown.

Enough is enough. Kevin Ogar deserves the truth.

Kevin Ogar just made the CrossFit L1 Seminar staff this week. Congrats, Kevin!

ACSM president-elect Larry Armstrong admitted in 2000 that Gatorade funding affects objectivity in science.

Witness the difference between 2000 Larry Armstrong and 2015 Larry Armstrong. 2000 Larry Armstrong presented himself in the Wall Street Journal as an allegedly Gatorade-independent researcher. 2015 Larry Armstrong is now the incoming president of the American College of Sports Medicine, a long-time Gatorade beneficiary and advocate.

Larry Armstrong in the Wall Street Journal in 2000:

Now contrast that 2000 Armstrong statement with Armstrong’s quote in the Wall Street Journal in 2015:

“At the point that you sense thirst, your physical performance and cognitive function are beginning to decline,” says ACSM president-elect Lawrence Armstrong of the University of Connecticut.

He points to findings that even 1.5% dehydration can affect performance, and says that athletes should craft individual plans based on their rates of sweat loss and fluid intake per hour.

(The study Armstrong cites to support the idea that 1.5% dehydration affects performance has little relevance to the real world. Its subjects biked without drinking for an hour before testing. This is not representative of the gradual dehydration that endurance athletes experience while competing and drinking to thirst.)

Armstrong’s 2000 admission that Gatorade funding affects the objectivity of scientific research concurs with Dr. Tim Noakes’ book, Waterlogged, as well as the BMJ article “The Truth About Sports Drinks.” Armstrong’s admission is only remarkable due to its source.

The American College of Sports Medicine, brought to you by Pepsico and Coca-Cola: http://bit.ly/1CoafEg

What effect do Gatorade’s hydration campaigns have in the real world? A series of preventable deaths from Exercise Associated Hyponatremic Encephalopathy. 

At this point, no one involved in the ACSM has any excuse for ignoring Gatorade’s effect on scientific objectivity. Their own president-elect admitted it.

So what’s next? ACSM has an ethical responsibility to correct the Gatorade-spread hydration myths that have taken the lives of over a dozen athletes. Else the ACSM will have to face the fact that its own president implied it has lost objectivity.

ACSM can not act to prevent further deaths from hyper-hydration and hyponatremia as long as it maintains a relationship with Gatorade, a company that tells athletes they do “not have to concern him or herself with hyponatremia too much.” 

Image by Dr. Lon Kilgore

Editor’s Note: We are pleased to present another guest post by Dr. Lon Kilgore. Today’s Kilgore article looks at the risks of vibration plate training. It continues the theme developed by John Weatherly. Weatherly’s vibration plate articles (Part 1, Part 2) exposed the unreliable research the National Strength and Conditioning Association published on its sponsor Power Plate. 

Image by Dr. Lon Kilgore

What do we really want to do with vibration devices? They’ve been in and out of fashion since Kellogg’s painful vibrating chair in the 1880’s but if vibration truly drove fitness gain, wouldn’t every truck driver and machine operator be a pinnacle of fitness? And doesn’t vibration carry with it a documented risk of injury?

—————-

It is no secret that the NSCA has made some relatively stern, and public, statements that paint CrossFit as a purveyor of unsafe and ineffective exercise training. For example,

An additional concern with ECPs is the risk of injury …

In summary, though ECPs such as CrossFit and P90X are very popular, this popularity does not appear to be warranted. There is little evidence from peer-reviewed studies that ECPs are safe and/or effective

Let’s counterpoint this treatment to how the NSCA approaches another trendy exercise modality, vibration training.

First, we need to set the table. Vibration training involves a trainee standing on, or exercising on a large vibrating plate. Some models of this equipment type have handlebars to hold, other models do not. The basic concept here is the strong vibrations, delivered at frequencies between 10 and 60 Hz, are applied to the human body and cause the mechanoreceptors (sensory nerves) in the muscles to fire, causing muscular contraction on a fairly large scale. This muscular activity, with no exercise, is proposed to drive fitness. If you can simply stand on a vibrator and get fit, why wouldn’t everyone do that? Especially since the NSCA blesses vibration training as safe and effective to use in every warm-up session:

it can be recommended that if practitioners have access to a WBV platform that it can be used within a warm-up protocol …

There was an increase in flexibility and power output

This position is interesting in the context of the background literature regarding vibration exposure and the human body. When a human body is exposed to vibration, the symptoms are immediate and related to vibration frequency (hertz or Hz):

• 4-8 Hz – Influence on breathing movements
• 4-9 Hz – General feeling of discomfort
• 4-9 Hz – Muscle contractions
• 4-10 Hz – Abdominal pains
• 5-7Hz – Chest Pains
• 6-8 Hz – Lower Jaw symptoms
• 10-18 Hz – Urge to urinate
• 12-16 Hz – “Lump in throat”
• 13-20 Hz – Head symptoms
• 13-20 Hz – Influence on speech
• 13-20 Hz – Increased muscle tonus

Vibrating the entire body repeatedly over time has also been documented to produce some fairly deleterious effects:

• 10 Hz – Inner ear damage
• 20 Hz – Organ resonance
• 30 Hz – Nerve damage
• 10-30 Hz – Blurred vision
• 50 Hz – Loss of visual acuity
• 30 and 60 Hz – Arterial damage

The risk of permanent damage from vibration is related to the amount of vibration exposure, with long or repeated exposures carrying the highest probability of injury. It is a telling indictment that the NSCA endorses regular use of an exercise modality that has enough documented hazard that the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration, via ANSI and ISO standards, and the European Parliament have recommendations in place to monitor and limit vibration exposure.

Regular exposure to whole-body vibration in the workplace has been described as a cause for:

• Low back pain
• Neck and shoulder disorders
• Digestive disorders
• Circulatory disorders
• Cochleo-vestibular disorders
• Possible reproductive issues
• Vehicular safety hazard (loss of vehicle control)

How broadly scoping potential for injury arises can be represented as in the graphic below:

By Dr. Lon Kilgore. Adapted and expanded from Seidel H (2005). On the relationship between Wholebody Vibration Exposure and Spinal Health Risk. Industrial Health, 43: 361-377.

While most of the concern about whole body vibration is in the workplace, the use of vibration devices in the fitness environment carries the same risks.

In fact, Clinton Rubin, Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Biomedical Engineering at SUNY, has written that

The magnitudes used in those devices [referring to commercially available vibration devices for fitness] well in excess of 8.0G, are well beyond the limits recommended for human tolerance by ISO and OSHA, are 35 times greater in amplitude than those mechanical signals that we study, are inherently dangerous, and to our knowledge, show little if any evidence that their devices are safe for the bone, cartilage, muscle, tendon, ligaments or any of the major organs.

Is it strange that the NSCA recommends an “exercise” modality that has a trainee placed on and potentially exercising on top of an apparatus that confounds neuromotor feedback and defeats spinal reflexes, reflexes intended to ensure our safety and function? What possible rationale could a professional organization have to take such a cavalier position in this instance while singling out CrossFit, whose safety has been shown to be as safe, or safer, than weight training, soccer, cheerleading, and virtually all other training modalities? http://www.nsca.com/about-us/support-and-sponsors/

Should the NSCA executive group take it upon themselves to drive the creation of materials for public consumption that inequitably and potentially wrongfully promote or deter use of any exercise modality? Should the NSCA membership demand accountability for the actions of their executive group?

These are valid questions that must be answered in order for the NSCA to rightfully occupy their self-proclaimed niche as the “world authority” on strength and conditioning.

SOURCES:

Leahy, G. Evidence-Based Physical Training: Do CrossFit or P90X Make the Cut.  http://www.nsca.com/education/articles/evidence-based-physical-training-do-crossfit-or-p90x-make-the-cut/

National Strength & Conditioning Association. Is whole-body vibration training effective for golfers? http://www.nsca.com/education/articles/is-whole-body-vibration-training-effective-for-golfers/

Rasmussen G. (1983). Human body vibration exposure and its measurement. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 73(6): 2229.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA Technical Manual (OTM) Section II: Chapter 3 [Updated 02/11/2014] https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_ii/otm_ii_3.html#WholeBodyVibration

American National Standards Institute. ANSI S3.18:2002 (adoption of ISO 2631-1). International Organization for Standardization. ISO 2631-1:1997 (Mechanical vibration and shock: Evaluation of human exposure to whole body vibration—Part 1: General requirements); http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%2fASA+S2.72-2002%2fPart+1+%2f+ISO+2631-1%3a1997+%28R2012%29

European Parliament. Directive 2002/44/EC. Minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32002L0044&from=EN

Muir J, Kiel D, and Rubin C. (2013). Safety and severity of accelerations delivered from whole body vibration exercise devices to standing adults. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 16(6): 526–531. 

Rubin, C. (2006). Contraindications and Potential Dangers of the Use of Vibration as a Treatment for Osteoporosis and other Musculoskeletal Diseases. http://www.bme.sunysb.edu/people/faculty/docs/crubin/safety-1-11-06.pdf

Seidel H (2005). On the relationship between Wholebody Vibration Exposure and Spinal Health Risk. Industrial Health, 43: 361-377

About the Author:
Professor Lon Kilgore graduated from Lincoln University with a bachelor of science in biology and earned a Ph.D. in anatomy and physiology from Kansas State University. He has competed in weightlifting to the national level since 1972 and coached his first athletes to national-championship event medals in 1974. He has worked in the trenches, as a coach or scientific consultant, with athletes from rank novices to professionals and the Olympic elite, and as a collegiate strength coach. He has been a certifying instructor for USA Weightlifting for more than a decade and a frequent lecturer at events at the U.S. Olympic Training Center. His illustration, authorship, and co-authorship efforts include the best-selling books “Starting Strength” (first and second editions) and “Practical Programming for Strength Training” (first and second editions), recent releases “Anatomy Without a Scalpel” and “FIT,” magazine columns, textbook chapters, and numerous research journal publications. He is presently engaged in the most difficult task of his career: recreating the educational track to becoming a professional fitness practitioner. The second stage of this effort is the creation of a one-year university qualification in fitness practice at the University of the West of Scotland.

CrossFit Games Masters competitor Shellie Eddington participated in the study conducted at CrossFit 614. She never heard anyone talking about injuries.

In 2013, the National Strength and Conditioning Association’s journal published a study on a 10-week challenge at a CrossFit affiliate.

The study claimed 11 participants did not complete the challenge and return for follow-up testing.  According to the study, two participants cited time constraints and nine participants, 16 percent of the total, cited “overuse or injury” as their reason for failing to complete the study.  The authors also called into question “the risk-benefit ratio for such extreme training programs,” even cautioning that the measured improvements from CrossFit training “may not be worth the risk of injury and lost training time.”

This injury figure was subsequently reported by mainstream media and was cited in other supposedly scientific studies. It has been repeatedly used as the basis of attacks against CrossFit Inc. and our affiliates. Yet it was completely false.

CrossFit identified the people who the study reports as having not completed the study.  Ten of those people have sworn to a federal court that they did not experience “overuse or injury” from the study.  They also swore they never told researchers they experienced any such problems.

Prior to the study’s publication, CrossFit told the NSCA it had investigated the injury data–by speaking with the data coordinator, the gym owner and certain of the study participants–and that the data was demonstrably false. CrossFit also told the NSCA the study’s authors were unwilling to explain the origin of the questionable data. The NSCA and the editor of its journal, William Kraemer, ignored their responsibility to follow-up on the information CrossFit provided them and published the study anyway.

One of the study’s authors has publicly stated the original draft did not include the fabricated injury data and it was included only after the NSCA journal’s editor asked for it.  Public records show the NSCA journal’s editor made it clear the study needed to emphasize this injury data. The NSCA agreed to publish the study after the authors added the false injury data and the statements about the “risk-benefit ratio” and the “risk of injury and lost training time.”

No appeal to NSCA’s nonprofit tax status, the supposed rigor of their peer-review process or CrossFit’s comparative success changes these facts. The NSCA bears direct responsibility for the harm this fraudulent study caused to CrossFit and our affiliates.

Editor’s Note: John T. Weatherly has helped with conditioning programs and research at the U.S. Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs. Weatherly began his NSCA muckraking with a two-part series on unreliable NSCA vibration research. Now Weatherly’s taking a look at the NSCA’s education program. 

“Strength and Conditioning for Stock Car Racing,” published in the NSCA’s journal: http://bit.ly/1ErN3jJ

The NSCA states on their website:

As the worldwide authority on strength and conditioning, we support and disseminate research-based knowledge and its practical application to improve athletic performance and fitness.

Note the word support in the above.

The NSCA Education Recognition Program states:

The NSCA Education Program (ERP) recognizes accredited academic institutions for their educational programs that have met, and continue to meet, educational guidelines recommended by the NSCA. ERP recognitions are good for three years and schools are eligible for renewal following this three year period.

As can be seen, there are three different ERP choices for schools. They are strength and conditioning, graduate studies, and personal training. Pay attention to the benefits of $25 off certification fees and $25 given to each academic department for every student that registers to take one of the certification tests. Other noteworthy benefits are marketing each ERP school on the NSCA website and NSCA Bulletin along with three free career postings on nsca.com. Additionally, note the newest perk of Exam Prep Live to sell review courses to students preparing to take the CSCS and/or NSCA-CPT exams:

Not only does this provide students an added opportunity to prepare for the NSCA exams, but this also provides a revenue opportunity to the hosting school.

Click the apply button and you will see there is a $500 fee schools must pay to the NSCA to be considered for inclusion in the ERP.

The NSCA’s Certification Czar’s University is not in the ERP

The main man behind the NSCA certifications is Dr. Thomas R. Baechle. Dr. Baechle has been at Creighton since the late 70’s and early 80’s when Creighton received a national black eye by cheating a reserve basketball player through school even though the player was functionally illiterate.

Thomas Baechle: http://bit.ly/19Absfg

(Note one place says Baechle is a PhD and the other an EdD. He’s an EdD. These universities and exercise science people don’t seem to proofread the material on their own sites).

The joke I heard about the Creighton starting five during the Kevin Ross era was their autographs were xxxxx. They couldn’t write their names. Kevin Ross was a reserve player. He didn’t know how to make an x. This is just an example of how low some of these so-called institutions of higher learning can stoop.

Anyway, here’s Dr. Baechle the Certification Czar and the NSCA charges a $500 fee for schools to be in the ERP, markets and sells Baechle’s babies (the CSCS and NSCA-CPT). Baechle’s own university (he’s the Department Head) does not even support the ERP by being in it. Look for the listing of Creighton University in the recognized ERP schools.

You won’t see Creighton University.

Current NSCA President Dr. Steve Fleck

Dr. Steve Fleck’s reign as NSCA President is about over. Did Fleck support the NSCA’s ERP at the schools he’s been at? Check for Colorado College and the U of Wisconsin-Parkside. You won’t find these schools listed anywhere in the ERP. The current NSCA President doesn’t support the ERP.

JSCR Editor-In-Chief Dr. William Kraemer

Legendary NSCA super-scientist, former NSCA President, and JSCR Editor-In-Chief Dr. Kraemer is a name that should be familiar to the CrossFit community. Dr. Kraemer surely must have supported the ERP at his most recent (U of Connecticut) and current university Ohio State – right? Ohio State and the U of Connecticut are not in the ERP either.

A Unique (Lonely) Program in the United States

Dr. Mike Stone: http://bit.ly/1x1xXDR

A one-of-a-kind educational program in the United States that integrates academic and athletic departments is the Center of Excellence at East Tennessee State University (ETSU). They are also a designated USOC Training Site for Weightlifting and several other sports. See sportscienceed.com for an overview of what they do. This is the brainchild of the prolific sport scientist, former USOC Head of Sports Physiology Dr. Mike Stone, and his wife, a former Olympian and the first woman strength and conditioning coach at a university in the US, Meg who is the Director of the Center of Excellence.

Dr. Stone recently confirmed to me that as far as he knew they were the only university in the US like this. They are also the only university in the US with a PhD program in sport science. Now, think about this: At this place you will see PhD students in the weight room actually doing power snatches, squats etc. They also work hands-on as strength and conditioning coaches/sport scientists with the athletic teams. Unlike other exercise scientists, they aren’t just a bunch of geeks in a lab that don’t know how to squat and don’t work with athletes.

I asked Dr. Stone with this unique program why they weren’t listed in the ERP? His reason was the $500 fee. Here’s an educational program that leads the country and to be an NSCA ERP they would have to pay the NSCA $500. It doesn’t make any sense at all. The nation’s only integrated sport science and coaching education program at a university doesn’t think the NSCA’s ERP is even worth $500!

What is the ERP selling?

An ERP school must have a CSCS who is employed at the school to be in the strength and conditioning program, the graduate studies program, and either a CSCS or NSCA-CPT to be in the personal training program. Remember, unlike CrossFit L3, NSCA certifications do not require any actual performance of exercises or technique competency. Thus, it is possible to be able to pass the NSCA certifications and not be able to teach or do a squat. Dr. Lon Kilgore has a series of articles demonstrating the NSCA can’t even agree on how to perform a squat: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

A college strength and conditioning coach at Notre Dame, Craig Cheek, has said on social media that most people calling themselves sport scientists or ERP teachers “aren’t real coaches.”

This same Notre Dame strength and conditioning coach has said that the ERP is about $!

Jason Roe, an instructor of the NSCA ERP at Carroll University, didn’t have any data about how successful his ERP was in producing students meaningfully employed in the strength and conditioning/exercise field.

Why wouldn’t NSCA ERP schools have data and track how successful their students are in the exercise field? Do they have something to hide?

They must. Legendary NSCA super-scientist Dr. William Kraemer told me while he was at UConn that they were advising their students to look at areas besides exercise such as selling insurance. Of course, Dr. Kraemer’s recent (U of Connecticut) and current (Ohio St) schools are not in the ERP so this wouldn’t actually count against the ERP.

The NSCA National Conference: http://bit.ly/1GYNm85

Worldwide Authority and Support?

In this article, I demonstrated NSCA leaders don’t even support the NSCA’s ERP at their own schools. This includes NSCA Certification Czar Dr. Tom Baechle, current NSCA President Dr. Steve Fleck, and JSCR Editor-in-Chief Dr. William Kraemer. None of these NSCA leaders believe in the ERP enough to have their own schools involved. The worldwide authority on strength and conditioning can’t even get three of its most prominent leaders to support the ERP.

“The NSCA’s Lead Sponsor for Education/Research programs is MusclePharm”

The NSCA’s entire ERP is ignored by these leaders and their institutions. And the NSCA sponsor for its educational programs is Musclepharm, a company sued not just for mislabeling its protein content, but also for lying about its products’ certifications. This supplement company used NSF certification marks on its products and ads without authorization. NSF had to clarify on its website that

Any MusclePharm products bearing NSF marks, or claims of NSF certification or claims of being manufactured in an NSF certified or registered facility are not approved or certified by NSF International.

This is the company that the NSCA chose to fund its educational program.

And these NSCA people think they are the ones to regulate or control the strength and conditioning/personal training field?

About the Author: John T. Weatherly has undergraduate and graduate degrees in exercise science. He was a research assistant to the former Head of Sports Physiology for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) and has helped with conditioning programs for athletes in Olympic sports as well as professional baseball, college football, and an NBA player. In the 90’s, John published and reviewed articles for the NSCA and was an NSCA media contact on the sport of baseball. He helped initiate the first study on a rotary inertia exercise device at the University of Southern California (USC) and has consulted with the exercise industry on various topics, including vibration.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Lon Kilgore began his YOU be the Judge series with five articles examining the NSCA’s self-contradictory squat instruction. Today he turns his focus to the NSCA’s self-contradictory deadlift instructions.

Interrogative: What should professional fitness trainers teach their trainees about bar position relative to foot and ankle placement in the start position of the deadlift?

Evidence: The NSCA Essentials of Strength Training & Conditioning, the NSCA Basics of Strength and Conditioning, and the NSCA official Website, all offer different instruction to trainers on foot position allowable when having their clients pull.

To wit;

Instruction 1 – Feet at hip width to shoulder width apart

Instruction 2 – Feet at hip width apart

Instruction 3 – Toes pointed outwards

Instruction 4 – Toes pointed straight forward

Instruction 5 – Bar one inch from shins

Instruction 6 – Bar touching the shins

Instruction 7 – Bar over the balls of the feet

Instruction 8 – Knees in line with the ankles

Instruction 9 – The exercise is called the “deadlift”

Instruction 10 – The exercise is called the “barbell clean deadlift”

Analysis: For instruction 1, this statement suggests that a range of positions between the feet lying under the acetabulum to the feet lying under the acromioclavicular joints is acceptable. Instruction 2 contradicts instruction 1 and states that the feet must be under the hips and not under the shoulders. Instruction 3 implies that external rotation of the feet (pointing them out) is correct. Instruction 4 contradicts this and states that the feet must be pointed forward along the sagittal plane. Instruction 5 places the bar one inch (2.5 cm) in advance of the shin. Instruction 6 contradicts this and places the bar touching the shin. Both instructions have a profound impact on ankle angle (and subsequently knee and hip angle) as instruction 7 places the bar over the balls of the feet (metatarsal-phalangeal joints) – the ankle angle becomes more acute if instructions 6 and 7 are linked, more obtuse if instructions 5 and 7 are linked.

Instruction 8 is a non-viable instruction as a knee over ankle alignment would require a 90 degree ankle. It also contradicts instruction 7. Instructions 9 and 10 are not per se specific to foot and ankle position however the name of the exercise is important in teaching exercise positions and in this instance the nomenclatures between texts conflict. Although the “barbell clean deadlift” specifies the exercise as a “deadlift” and the modifier “clean” seems to indicate a double-overhand grip, it is possible that the authors intended a differing start position for this exercise other than that of a standard “deadlift” with no name modifiers, but this is not apparent or articulated. This is further confused with another passage referring to the deadlift motion as simply “lifting a bar from the floor”.

Summary: The self-proclaimed world authoritative materials promulgated by the NSCA are inconsistent in recommendation, incomplete in scientific support, lacking definition, inadequate in anatomical description, and impractical in application. A clear and uniform description is not discernible. The said publications and recommendations create an environment where education of professionals on foot and ankle placement during the deadlift is inconsistent and poorly described. Further, the name of the exercise is not consistent between publications thus increasing the amount of confusion.

The authorship, editorial, or graphical issues present may ultimately have negative effects on individual fitness results and the safety of the public, as correct technique cannot be reliably determined from the published statements, texts, and videos.

About the Author
Professor Lon Kilgore graduated from Lincoln University with a bachelor of science in biology and earned a Ph.D. in anatomy and physiology from Kansas State University. He has competed in weightlifting to the national level since 1972 and coached his first athletes to national-championship event medals in 1974. He has worked in the trenches, as a coach or scientific consultant, with athletes from rank novices to professionals and the Olympic elite, and as a collegiate strength coach. He has been a certifying instructor for USA Weightlifting for more than a decade and a frequent lecturer at events at the U.S. Olympic Training Center. His illustration, authorship, and co-authorship efforts include the best-selling books “Starting Strength” (first and second editions) and “Practical Programming for Strength Training” (first and second editions), recent releases “Anatomy Without a Scalpel” and “FIT,” magazine columns, textbook chapters, and numerous research journal publications. He is presently engaged in the most difficult task of his career: recreating the educational track to becoming a professional fitness practitioner. The second stage of this effort is the creation of a one-year university qualification in fitness practice at the University of the West of Scotland.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Lon Kilgore has already exposed the NSCA’s self-contradictory instructions on the deadlift and the squat. Today he turns his sights to the NSCA’s self-contradictory power clean instruction.

Interrogative: What should professional fitness trainers teach their trainees about the start position of the Power Clean?

Evidence: The NSCA Essentials of Strength Training & Conditioning, the NSCA Basics of Strength and Conditioning, and the NSCA official Website, all offer different instruction to trainers on start position when having their clients Power Clean.

To wit;

Instruction 1 – Feet at hip width to shoulder width apart

Instruction 2 – Feet at hip width apart

Instruction 3 – Toes pointed outwards

Instruction 4 – Toes pointed straight forward

Instruction 5 – Bar one inch from shins

Instruction 6 – Bar touching the shins

Instruction 7 – Bar over the balls of the feet

Instruction 8 – Hips lower than shoulders

Instruction 9 – Hips higher than knees

Instruction 10 – Trapezius relaxed

Instruction 11 – Chest up and out

Instruction 12 – Shoulder blades pulled together

Instruction 13 – Shoulders over the bar or slightly in front of the bar

Instruction 14 – Head in neutral position

Instruction 15 – Head in line with vertebral column or slightly hyperextended

Instruction 16 – The exercise is called the “Power Clean”

Instruction 17 – The exercise is called the “Barbell Power Clean”

Analysis:
For instruction 1, this statement suggests that a range of positions between the feet lying under the acetabulum to the feet lying under the acromioclavicular joints is acceptable. Instruction 2 contradicts instruction 1 and states that the feet must be under the hips and not under the shoulders.

Instruction 3 implies that external rotation of the feet (pointing them out) is correct. Instruction 4 contradicts this and states that the feet must be pointed forward along the sagittal plane.

Instruction 5 places the bar one inch (2.5 cm) in advance of the shin. Instruction 6 contradicts this and places the bar touching the shin. Both instructions have a profound impact on ankle angle (and subsequently knee and hip angle) as instruction 7 places the bar over the balls of the feet (metatarsal-phalangeal joints) – the ankle angle becomes more acute if instructions 6 and 7 are linked, more obtuse if instructions 5 and 7 are linked.

Although not directly contradictory, instructions 8 and 9 present hip height without regard to the huge range of positions possible from the instructions given, thus making virtually any hip height between a back position nearly parallel to the floor and a nearly vertical position “correct.”

Instruction 10 requires a relaxed trapezius which is in direct contradiction to instruction 11 (from the same text) and instruction 12. Both of these latter instructions require contraction of the trapezius muscle.

Instruction 13 makes no reference to specific anatomical points thus making the instruction inaccurate and easily misapplied. Instruction 14 suggests that the cervical spine should be held in normal extension (neutral) and this contradicts with part of instruction 15. The portion of instruction 15 where there is a large issue is that there is a suggestion that the trainee hyperextend the cervical spine. This is absolutely inappropriate instruction as the definition of hyperextension is the “extension of a joint beyond its normal range of motion.” To hyperextend is to injure.

Instructions 16 and 17 are not per se specific to start position, however the name of the exercise is important in teaching exercise positions and in this instance the nomenclatures between texts conflict.

A clean at the NSCA’s National Conference: http://bit.ly/1GYNm85

Summary: The self-proclaimed world authoritative materials promulgated by the NSCA are inconsistent in recommendation, incomplete in scientific support, lacking definition, inadequate in anatomical description, and impractical in application. A clear and uniform description is not discernible. The said publications and recommendations create an environment where education of professionals on foot and ankle placement during the deadlift is inconsistent and poorly described. Further, the name of the exercise is not consistent between publications thus increasing the amount of confusion.

The authorship, editorial, or graphical issues present may ultimately have negative effects on individual fitness results and the safety of the public, as correct technique cannot be reliably determined from the published statements, texts, and videos.

About the Author
Professor Lon Kilgore graduated from Lincoln University with a bachelor of science in biology and earned a Ph.D. in anatomy and physiology from Kansas State University. He has competed in weightlifting to the national level since 1972 and coached his first athletes to national-championship event medals in 1974. He has worked in the trenches, as a coach or scientific consultant, with athletes from rank novices to professionals and the Olympic elite, and as a collegiate strength coach. He has been a certifying instructor for USA Weightlifting for more than a decade and a frequent lecturer at events at the U.S. Olympic Training Center. His illustration, authorship, and co-authorship efforts include the best-selling books “Starting Strength” (first and second editions) and “Practical Programming for Strength Training” (first and second editions), recent releases “Anatomy Without a Scalpel” and “FIT,” magazine columns, textbook chapters, and numerous research journal publications. He is presently engaged in the most difficult task of his career: recreating the educational track to becoming a professional fitness practitioner. The second stage of this effort is the creation of a one-year university qualification in fitness practice at the University of the West of Scotland.

Interrogative: What should professional fitness trainers teach their trainees about performing the curl?

Evidence: The NSCA Essentials of Strength Training & Conditioning, the NSCA Basics of Strength and Conditioning, and the NSCA official Website, all offer different instruction to trainers on instructing clients in the curl. To wit;

Instruction 1 – Closed supinated grip

Instruction 2 – Supinated grip

Instruction 3 – Shoulder width grip

Instruction 4 – Shoulder width arms touching sides

Instruction 5 – Elbows near side of body throughout

Instruction 6 – Elbows directly under shoulder

Instruction 7 – Shoulder blades pulled together

Instruction 8 – Elbows extended at start

Instruction 9 – Elbows extended with bar on thighs at start

Instruction 10 – Elbows fully extended

Instruction 11 – Stand erect

Instruction 12 – Back flat

Instruction 13 – Engage “Core” for stability

Instruction 14 – Flex elbows to move bar upward

Instruction 15 – Flex elbows until bar is near anterior deltoid

Instruction 16 – Fully flex elbows

Analysis:
Instruction 1 indicates that the hand should be supinated and the fingers and thumb are wrapped around the bar. Instruction 2, as written, allows an open grip with the thumb not wrapped around the bar. Instructions 3 through 6 describe where the grip on the weight is relative to the shoulder. All instructions consider the arm as a straight line such that the shoulder, elbow, and hand can be oriented in a line perpendicular to the floor – shoulder over elbow over hand gripping weight. This ignores carry angle, the anatomical observation that the forearm deviates laterally from a perpendicular upper arm. If the upper arm is directly under the shoulder with a fully supinated hand position, the hand cannot be. Interestingly, instruction 7 directs the trainee to retract the scapula which will narrow the width of the shoulder posture and further exacerbate grip width issues. As such instructions 3 through 7 are contradictory.

If the upper arm is directly under the shoulder with a fully supinated hand position, the hand cannot be.

Instructions 8 through 10 indicate that a complete extension of the elbow at the beginning of each repetition is correct, however book pictorial and website video depictions demonstrate incomplete extensions to as much as 20 degrees short of complete extension of the elbow. Instruction 11 suggest that the correct posture would be in normal vertebral extension, however instruction 12 indicates the proper position is with a “flat” back. Does this imply that the trainee should be coached to actively flatten the normal lordotic and kyphotic arches of the back? Instruction 13 uses a jargon term, “core”, without definition. Without defining what musculature is involved, the instruction cannot be executed properly. Instructions 14, 15, and 16 all indicate that the only movement in the curl is elbow flexion. However the end point of movement varies by source. Instruction 14 provides nothing more than “upward” as guidance with no discernible end point, allowing for incomplete or complete range of motion movements to be considered correct. Instruction 15 says near the anterior deltoid, thus specifically indicating that incomplete range of motion movement is acceptable. Instruction 16 provides the most robust instruction of the three as it indicates a desired full range of elbow motion. However, pictorial and video illustrations accompanying these instructions deviate from the written word with the weights ending point at about 6” away from deltoid in one example, another shows the end ranges of motion being complete elbow extension and elbow flexion with approximately 30^o of range of motion remaining, another shows end ranges of motion being complete elbow extension at the start and elbow flexion with approximately 45^o of range of motion remaining. In all descriptions the fact that the biceps brachii muscle crosses both the elbow and shoulder is ignored. Full range of motion exercise for the biceps requires elbow flexion and shoulder extension. The final conflicting issue is nomenclature, combined these sources use the name “bicep curl” interchangeably to describe barbell and dumbbell curls.

Summary:
The self-proclaimed world authoritative materials promulgated by the NSCA are inconsistent in recommendation, incomplete in scientific support, lacking definition, inadequate in anatomical description, and impractical in application. A clear and uniform description is not discernable. The said publications and recommendations create an environment where education of professionals on performing and teaching the curl is inconsistent and poorly described. Further, the name of the exercise is not consistent between publications thus increasing the amount of confusion.

The authorship, editorial, or graphical issues present may ultimately have negative effects on individual fitness results and the safety of the public, as correct technique cannot be reliably determined from the published statements, texts, and videos.

About the Author
Professor Lon Kilgore graduated from Lincoln University with a bachelor of science in biology and earned a Ph.D. in anatomy and physiology from Kansas State University. He has competed in weightlifting to the national level since 1972 and coached his first athletes to national-championship event medals in 1974. He has worked in the trenches, as a coach or scientific consultant, with athletes from rank novices to professionals and the Olympic elite, and as a collegiate strength coach. He has been a certifying instructor for USA Weightlifting for more than a decade and a frequent lecturer at events at the U.S. Olympic Training Center. His illustration, authorship, and co-authorship efforts include the best-selling books “Starting Strength” (first and second editions) and “Practical Programming for Strength Training” (first and second editions), recent releases “Anatomy Without a Scalpel” and “FIT,” magazine columns, textbook chapters, and numerous research journal publications. He is presently engaged in the most difficult task of his career: recreating the educational track to becoming a professional fitness practitioner. The second stage of this effort is the creation of a one-year university qualification in fitness practice at the University of the West of Scotland.

Editor’s Note: The Russells’ blog has a history with NSCA and ACSM sponsors. We first detailed Gatorade’s corruption of hydration science. Gatorade has since begun advising athletes to drink “ad libitum” during exercise. NSCA removed Power Plate from its sponsor section after John T. Weatherly exposed the unreliable research on Power Plate that NSCA has published. Today Weatherly turns his target to Musclepharm.

Source: http://www.suppnation.com/reviews/musclepharm-combat-powder-reviews/

MusclePharm is the lead sponsor for NSCA education programs and research.

Their CEO Brad Pyatt says:

“But don’t take my word for it. As with any product you put in your body, I invite and encourage you to truly examine our products, our ingredients and processes, then incorporate the correct ones into your fitness routine.”

MusclePharm also brags about backing up claims with “real science and quality control.”

Where is the Quality Control?

Truly examine MusclePharm as their CEO Brad Pyatt advises and you’ll find them being sued for not providing the protein content they state on product labels. FDA press officer Jennifer Dooren states,

 FDA requires that dietary supplements be labeled in a manner that is truthful and not misleading. With regard to the labeling of protein content, FDA’s expectation for proper nutrition labeling is that firms will evaluate the protein content from actual protein sources – not other nitrogen – containing ingredients such as individual amino acids – and label the products consistent with the results of such evaluations …

This current lawsuit against MusclePharm concerns the ingredients in the MusclePharm Arnold Schwarzenegger Series Iron Mass product. The plaintiff accuses Musclepharm of deceptive or false advertising that has caused consumers to pay more for much less protein content than MusclePharm represents on the label.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexmorrell/2015/03/12/lawsuits-say-protein-powders-lack-protein-ripping-off-athletes/

By adding cheap fillers such as non-protein ingredients and cheaper free-form amino acids MusclePharm can increase the nitrogen content of their protein powder. This is called protein spiking. Protein spiking allows MusclePharm to fake a high protein content. This faked high protein content means consumers of the product receive less than half of the protein content listed on the label of the product (19.4 grams instead of the listed 40 grams) according to scientific testing.

So, MusclePharm is currently being sued for lying on their labels about the actual protein content in their products. Go back a couple years and you’ll find MusclePharm was sued for using NSF certifications without authorization. NSF states,

Any MusclePharm products bearing NSF marks, or claims of NSF certification or claims of being manufactured in and NSF certified or regulated facility are not approved or certified by NSF International.

In addition to this, MusclePharm was recently caught using the CrossFit name without authorization by saying they had a “Complete CrossFit Gym” as part of their onsite fitness facility. Musclepharm has since removed this false claim from their website.

It’s obvious MusclePharm has demonstrated an ongoing pattern of deceitful behavior.

The Tentacles of MusclePharm in the NSCA

Musclepharm Sports Science Institute Director Jordan Moon presents at the NSCA National Conference. Source: https://twitter.com/dgriffs5/status/487688356558422016

Musclepharm is not merely a sponsor of NSCA – it’s intimately involved in the NSCA’s core businesses. MusclePharm hosts NSCA events including certification exams and regional conferences at the MusclePharm headquarters.

Dr. Jordan Moon is the MusclePharm Research Institute Director. Dr. Moon is also a reviewer for the NSCA’s journals: the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research and the Strength and Conditioning Journal. In addition Dr. Moon works as a NSCA research grant reviewer, research consortium coordinator, and abstract reviewer for the NSCA. Furthermore, Dr. Moon was a judge for student research presentations at the 2011 NSCA National Conference and a presenter at the 2014 NSCA National Conference. Despite the controversy surrounding Musclepharm, Moon will present at the 2015 NSCA National Conference as well.

Dr. Moon is also the Rocky Mountain Region Director for the NSCA and NSCA Colorado State Director.

Notice two of the statements that describe what NSCA state directors do:

– “Provide educational opportunities in the form of educational events.”

– “Facilitate the exchange of information between membership and the NSCA Board of Directors.”

The October 6, 2014 NSCA Foundation BOD Teleconference Meeting illuminates the influence of Dr. Moon and MusclePharm on the NSCA.

Chad Kerksick introduced and indicated he spoke with Jordan Moon, PhD, Research Director for MusclePharm, on 9/9/14. Jordan Moon reiterated his company’s interest in providing funds to offset the cost of the abstract submission program in exchange for recognition of support.

Dr. Jordan Moon is an NSCA official and director of the Musclepharm Sports Science Institute.

Conflict of Interest

So, here we have the lead sponsor for education and research of the NSCA sued for fraud, sued for the unauthorized use of NSF marks and certifications, and guilty of the unauthorized use of the registered CrossFit trademark at their onsite corporate fitness facilities. MusclePharm has hosted NSCA events and certification tests at their company headquarters. Dr. Jordan Moon is a reviewer for NSCA publications, research grants, has spoken at the NSCA National Conference, and is the NSCA Rocky Mountain Region Director along with being the NSCA Colorado State Director. These are highlights of MusclePharm’s behavior and influence on the NSCA.

There’s more to this story. Intrepid sleuths may want to focus on why MusclePharm would lie about NSF certification for products in 2013? The answer and more information will be coming right here on Russells’ Blog in Part 3. But next, in part two Russ Greene will cover the NSCA partner’s sketchy financial behavior, including an SEC investigation.

About the Author: John T. Weatherly has undergraduate and graduate degrees in exercise science. He was a research assistant to the former Head of Sports Physiology for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) and has helped with conditioning programs for athletes in Olympic sports as well as professional baseball, college football, and an NBA player. In the 90’s, John published and reviewed articles for the NSCA and was an NSCA media contact on the sport of baseball. He helped initiate the first study on a rotary inertia exercise device at the University of Southern California (USC) and has consulted with the exercise industry on various topics, including vibration.

CrossFit Inc. and Dr. Tim Noakes have taken on Gatorade and its partners in exercise science. The topic: hydration.

CrossFit hosted an international conference on Exercise-Associated Hyponatremia. Noakes went toe-to-toe with Gatorade’s spokesmen and even published a history of the creation of exercise associated hyponatremia (EAH occurs when athletes drink too much during exercise and dilute their blood sodium below healthy levels).

An astute journalist could build a career uncovering the full magnitude of Gatorade-funded fraud, and the consequent carnage. Contact us and we’ll facilitate this.

Yet CrossFit Inc.’s two main points are straightforward and easily-documented:

1. Gatorade Corrupts Science
Gatorade’s involvement in exercise science twists scientific research to sell more product.

2. Stay Safe: Drink to Thirst
Instead of following extreme hydration guidelines such as the American College of Sports Medicine’s “the maximal amount that can be tolerated,” or Gatorade’s “at least 40 oz. of fluid an hour,” etc., athletes should just drink ad libitum, or when they feel like it. Humans possess an effective mechanism for preventing hyper-hydration and severe dehydration: thirst.

After at least 17 preventable deaths, Gatorade and American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) officials have finally confessed to both counts.

For four decades Gatorade spent billions telling consumers to drink more than is necessary, or safe.

What Took So Long?

It took a generation for Gatorade and its partners in exercise science to fully retreat from their extreme hydration recommendations. Even as 17+ athletes died from hyper-hydration, Gatorade and its partners resisted confessing that drinking to thirst was the safe way to go.

The opposition facing CrossFit and Noakes was formidable. Gatorade earns PepsiCo over $4 billion a year. Gatorade sends some of those profits to their partners in exercise science: the National Strength and Conditioning Association, the American College of Sports Medicine, and the National Athletic Trainers’ Association.

Gatorade leverages its relationships with ACSM and NSCA to influence coaches’ and athletes’ drinking practices. Gatorade and its owner PepsiCo are quite open about this. See this Gatorade Marketing position’s role at Pepsico:

Lead all strategy and execution against emerging strength coach audience, identifying ways to educate and for Gatorade to add value to this important influencer group. Lead partnerships and activation with CSCCa and NSCA in collaboration with sports marketing … Work closely with GSSI marketing team on strategy and execution for science influencers and the translation to practitioner groups. Collaborate on efforts with key partner orgs and at key conferences including ACSM, ECSS and GSSI XP.

Incoming ACSM president Larry Armstrong admitted to the Wall Street Journal that Gatorade funding “does affect objectivity.”  If he cares at all about scientific objectivity, Armstrong must use his authority at ACSM to remove Gatorade’s corrosive impact. He must not just end Gatorade’s partnership with ACSM, but also ban all ACSM fellows from accepting Gatorade dollars.

Gatorade Finally Adopts CrossFit and Noakes’ Science:

Last summer, three high school football players died: William Shogran, Zyrees Oliver, and Walker Wilbanks. At least two of them died from drinking too much Gatorade and water. This spring, Gatorade released a Webinar on American Football that radically changed Gatorade’s hydration stance. The Gatorade Webinar brought Gatorade’s hydration policies much more closely in line with CrossFit Inc. and Dr. Noakes’ science-based guidelines. You can watch the hydration segment starting at 42:46 here. A transcript is available here. And you can read an article on the topic here.

Gatorade’s football webinar recommended that athletes “minimize fluids by drinking ad libitum during activity and replacing the remainder of fluid losses after activity.”

Ad libitum means “at will.” In other words, Gatorade’s warning exercising athletes to drink if, and only if, they feel like it.

Why the change? Gatorade’s now warning that “drinking too much fluid” causes Hyponatremia, a condition that “can lead to death.”

Thirst is a great guide for a person to have an overall indication of their hydration status. We definitely want to educate that thirst can be a good indicator because if an athlete is thirsty on a football field that’s a great clue that they need, they need fluid. And to be honest, during activity, because we don’t have great technologies yet that people are trying to develop, we don’t have a way to assess hydration status during activity while they’re in full gear out on the field because they’re not gonna be checking their urine status, we don’t have the ability to weigh them during a practice. So thirst can be real-time, can be a helpful indicator for somebody. We like to combine that with people having a clue about what their hydration needs are because if they very consistently lose 2 liters per hour, they do that every practice during intense exercise in the heat, and the practice is 3 hours long, we have a pretty good idea that they’re gonna lose 6 liters. So we wanna’ maybe try to get 4 liters back in so that they might only be 3 or 4% dehydrated when they walk off the field instead of being 7 or 8% dehydrated.

Atonement
Had Gatorade come clean in 2003, Walker Wilbanks, Zyrees Oliver, Patrick Allen, and other casualties of over-hydration may have survived. And so, Gatorade’s 2015 confession is not enough to make things right. A private webinar and an accompanying article can’t undo untold numbers of billboards and magazine ads. And they can’t give the Olivers, Wilbanks and Allens back their sons.

Zyrees Oliver as a baby. He went on to captain the football team, earn a 3.8 GPA, and die from drinking excessive Gatorade and water.

John Weatherly’s first article in this series covered some striking facts about the supplement company Musclepharm. This company has faced multiple lawsuits for misleading consumers as to its protein count and product certifications. And yet the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) places a Musclepharm employee prominently in its organization.

A Disturbing Pattern at NSCA

NSCA proudly displays its Musclepharm relationship: http://www.nsca.com/education/programs/

This blog has detected disturbing pattern at NSCA Headquarters. Besides Musclepharm, NSCA has maintained questionable relationships with Power Plate and Gatorade. After Weatherly’s expose of unreliable NSCA research on Power Plate, NSCA removed the company from its sponsor section. NSCA has not yet extricated Gatorade or Musclepharm, however.

Some readers missed a crucial distinction between sponsorship and corrupting corporate influence. Musclepharm is not a mere NSCA sponsor – it exerts a powerful influence on the NSCA’s events and published research. Musclepharm hosts NSCA conferences at its headquarters and funds the NSCA’s Educational Program. Musclepharm alleges a “Sports Science Institute.” Its director is Jordan Moon.

Moon serves as Rocky Mountain Region Director for NSCA. He presents at NSCA conferences, reviews articles for NSCA publications, and judges student research. In other words, NSCA has put Moon in charge of verifying the integrity and validity of research.

NSCA-certified trainers may question the NSCA’s decision. Why has NSCA has chosen to maintain an operational relationship with a company sued for falsely claiming NSF certification and for putting half as much protein in its products as claimed? Why would the NSCA select for its review team a Musclepharm official who evidently hasn’t verified the validity of his own company’s claims? Shall NSCA certified trainers hope that while Dr. Moon repeatedly falls short when it comes to Musclepharm’s own product labels, he yet manages to review NSCA’s research capably?

Or are we to hope that Musclepharm made a few mistakes with protein counting, but otherwise functions as a legitimate enterprise? The evidence suggests otherwise.

Source: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/armed-warfare-ct-fletchers-arms-workout.html

Musclepharm Underwent an SEC Investigation
The good news for NSCA-certified trainers is that the Musclepharm relationship may end soon. Musclepharm’s financial mismanagement and misbehavior have prompted an SEC investigation and required the company to put its intellectual property up as collateral on a loan.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced an investigation into Musclepharm Corporation’s financial practices on September 30, 2013. Musclepharm is a publicly-traded company: MSLP. On April 13, 2015, Musclepharm announced that it had reached “an agreement in principle with the SEC. The SEC commissioners have not yet approved the agreement, but it is expected to carry harsh fines for those who violated federal security laws while working for Musclepharm.

The news gets worse for Musclepharm stockholders: SEC may require Musclepharm Corp. to “indemnify those individuals for expenses in connection with those investigations and to advance funds to the individuals for those expenses.” In other words, Musclepharm will have to indirectly pay the SEC fines itself.

Can Musclepharm cough up the cash? Its fiscal strength has atrophied severely in the past 6 months. In October the stock surpassed $14 a share; it’s now trading at least than 1/3 that.

Source: http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/MSLP

Even before the SEC agreement announcement, the investor website Seeking Alpha reported that “with only $1M in the bank, the company won’t be able to make payroll for long.”

Taking Loans to Make Payroll 
Musclepharm crawls along thanks to a desperate $4 million loan that it has nearly exhausted. Another Seeking Alpha article reports, “it looks like MSLP executives have put up their inventory and their IP (intellectual property) as collateral for a $4 million loan, which they have nearly already spent.”

Combine Musclepharm’s low capital with impending SEC fines and it looks like Musclepharm’s “brand ownership and their IP are actually at risk in the coming 6 months.” Musclepharm’s intellectual property includes logos, formulas, and even the name “Musclepharm.” All are at risk.

How did Musclepharm string investors along this far? Musclepharm appears to have done to revenue what they were sued for doing to protein. Musclepharm’s revenue reports recognize “unearned revenue.” Matthew Finston explains,

Supplement retailers appear to be paying for MusclePharm’s merchandise only after the retailer makes a sale. Products are shipped to retailers even though full payment has not been received. Revenues are then recorded and valued at the MSRP, even though the full cash amount has not exchanged hands. To entice consumers, MusclePharm offers promotions, discounts, and allowances that end up reducing the cost of the product and subsequently undermine the company’s revenue growth.

In Musclepharm’s words, “actual results could differ from recorded amounts.”

Musclepharm CEO Brad Pyatt. Source: https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_400_400/p/5/000/1ff/110/0030fdd.jpg

As Musclepharm approaches its apparently inevitable insolvency, its CEO Brad Pyatt lives large. Bloomberg reports that Pyatt “was awarded $4.9 million in 2014.” Note that Pyatt’s 2014 compensation exceeded the value of the loan Musclepharm took out that year to make payroll.

In 2012 and 2013, Musclepharm reimbursed Pyatt $200,000 for “golf bags, jewelry, clothing, spa tabs and other perks.” Musclepharm initially reported all these as “business” expenses, but has since retreated and revised its statements.

Musclepharm admitted in 2013 that its CEO’s financial blunders “may expose us to assertions by others that our management team may not know how to effectively run a business.”

To what assertions does Musclepharm’s misbehavior expose the NSCA?

Editor’s Note: Can strength and conditioning coaches trust the supplements at NSCA conferences? John Weatherly concludes the NSCA sponsor series this week by exposing the disguised steroids and false certifications associated with NSCA’s biggest supplement partners. 

Musclepharm signed Tiger Woods: http://www.sportika.com/news/article/tiger-woods-to-debut-musclepharm-as-new-golf-bag-sponsor

Let’s start out by setting the stage with points made in articles in this series:

1) MusclePharm is the National Strength and Conditioning Association’s (NSCA) lead sponsor for education and research.

2) MusclePharm was sued for claiming 40 grams of protein in a supplement when independent testing revealed only 19.4 grams. 

3) MusclePharm is on the brink of financial collapse.

4) The Securities and Exchange Commission investigated MusclePharm, and will fine Musclepharm employees for violating federal securities laws. 

5) MusclePharm has used the registered CrossFit trademark without authorization by saying they have a “Complete CrossFit Gym.” 

6) MusclePharm was cited by NSF for unauthorized use of NSF certifications and labels on December 6, 2013. NSF had to resort to legal action until the dispute was resolved. 

NSF’s site states:

Any MusclePharm products bearing NSF marks, or claims of NSF certification or claims of being manufactured in an NSF certified or registered facility are not approved or certified by NSF International.

Here’s a copy of the lawsuit.

Musclepharm falsely claimed NSF certification on its supplements. Source: https://thecounterfeitreport.com/product/543/Artec-NSF-Certified-RO-Units.html

Why Would MusclePharm Dupe the Public About NSF Certification?

NSF is a highly respected independent product testing organization. Certification by NSF informs people a company adheres to strict standards.

Most importantly, NSF certification is not a one-time event, but involves regular on-site inspections of manufacturing facilities and regular re-testing of products to ensure that they continue to meet the same high standards required to maintain certification over time, if for any reason a product fails to meet one or more certification criteria, NSF will take enforcement actions to protect you, including product recall, public notification, or de-certification.

Products that earn NSF certification are said to be NSF certified or NSF listed and display the applicable NSF certification mark to show that they have been tested by one of today’s most respected independent product testing organizations.

For dietary supplements, being NSF certified helps establish the product does not contain substances banned by organizations including Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Football League (NFL), and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).

Therefore, it’s obvious why MusclePharm would want people to believe their products were NSF certified. So, MusclePharm lied and misled people until NSF had to threaten them with legal action to resolve this issue. To reiterate, MusclePharm was cited by NSF for unauthorized use of NSF certification or marks on December 6, 2013 and is currently being sued for claiming over twice the actual tested protein content for one of their products on labels.

Yet, MusclePharm claims on their website,

“Committed to offering only the best supplements on the market, we back up our Fueling Athletes Safely claim with real science and quality control. Every year, we invest millions into R&D and Quality Control to ensure customer safety. This is what truly sets MP apart and why millions of customers trust the MP brand.”

Isn’t it peculiar with this great Research & Development and Quality Control they were sued by NSF and are currently being sued for fraud?

Why would the NSCA work with a company that falsely claimed NSF certification and also (according to the current lawsuit) may be ripping off athletes?

And besides this, there’s something much darker lurking in the shadows of MusclePharm. A current MusclePharm executive and his brother pled guilty in 2012 to selling dietary supplements containing anabolic steroids or steroid clones, following a federal investigation.

NSCA’s state clinic at Musclepharm HQ: https://twitter.com/theathletesdoc/status/433047893998452736

MusclePharm Executive Jeremy DeLuca

Jeremy DeLuca is the Executive Vice President of MusclePharm’s Brand & Business Development. 

Jeremy DeLuca brings more than 14 years of sports nutrition experience as MusclePharm’s President of Sales. He joined the company in November 2010, applying his expertise in marketing and sales to create innovative promotions and marketing programs for MusclePharm. DeLuca co-founded Bodybuilding.com in 1999. As President of the leading online sports nutrition and supplements company, he was actively involved in all aspects of business from marketing and sales to e-commerce. During his tenure, Bodybuilding.com annual sales topped $200 million.

Musclepharm fails to mention anything about how Jeremy DeLuca and his brother Ryan pled guilty to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for disguising steroids or steroid clones in their supplements. Note the U.S. Department of Justice Press Release is dated May 22, 2012 and MusclePharm states Jeremy DeLuca joined them in November 2010. It didn’t seem to bother MusclePharm at all that Jeremy DeLuca pled guilty for delivery and introduction of misbranded drugs while working for MusclePharm. Nor did the NSCA seem to mind.

Back in 2009, Bodybuilding.com recalled 65 different supplement products for containing steroids. But that was just the beginning.

Three years later, the FDA investigation exposed that,

… between March 2006 and September 2009, Bodybuilding.com, LLC, sold five products misbranded as dietary supplements, when they were actually drugs. The five products were: I Force Methadrol, Nutra Costal D-Stianozol, I Force Dymethazine, Rage RV5, and Genetic Edge Technologies (GET) SUS500. According to the plea agreements, the products were drugs because they contained synthetic anabolic steroids or synthetic chemical “clones” of anabolic steroids that were not dietary supplements and because they were labeled and promoted as products intended to affect the structure and function of the human body (building muscle mass).

Note Bodybuilding.com had to pay the FDA a $7 million fine and Jeremy DeLuca paid a $600,000 fine. Jeremy is former president and vice president of Bodybuilding.com while his brother Ryan DeLuca is the CEO.

How many supplements sold at Bodybuilding.com booths have contained steroids? Source: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/filer_arnold_overall.htm

“MusclePharm is one of the best supplements on the market,” said Ryan DeLuca, Bodybuilding.com’s CEO and founder: “What truly sets MusclePharm apart is their quality controls, which ensure customer safety, as well as the time they spend on research and development. This is what’s really going to distinguish the Hardcore supplement series from other lines out there.”

It looks like brotherly love when Ryan says this about his brother Jeremy’s company MusclePharm that is being sued for fraud.

MusclePharm’s Brothers – Bodybuilding.com and the NSCA

With the brothers DeLuca both executives with MusclePharm and Bodybuilding.com, it should come as no surprise that MusclePharm has won a slew of Bodybuilding.com supplement awards in 2013 and 2014.

Gee, what do you think? Is it possible nepotism is rearing its ugly head here?

The brothers DeLuca and their companies have something else in common. The NSCA is a family member to both MusclePharm and Bodybuilding.com. Here is a quote from the NSCA sponsor section:

“You trust the NSCA to provide research-backed information to safely and effectively train. At MusclePharm you can trust our products are researched, developed, tested, and backed by science from the lab to the playing field. This is what sets MusclePharm – a company of athletes – apart.”

Bodybuilding.com states that,

“Just like the NSCA, we’re passionate about supporting the trainers and coaches who make a difference. Think of us as your go-to resource to motivate and inform your clients.”

Even Dr. Carwyn Sharp, the NSCA Director of Education, endorses Bodybuilding.com:

“As a personal trainer, strength coach and athlete, I regularly visit Bodybuilding.com to purchase products; it keeps me updated with what’s going on in the industry.”

Bodybuidling.com’s booths remain popular despite the brand’s criminal history with steroids: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/images/2007/filer_arnold_overall_a.jpg

Why Does the NSCA Endorse and Work with Deceptive Supplement Companies?

Key points in this series have included the NSCA’s conflict of interest with Dr. Jordan Moon of MusclePharm. Moon is a reviewer for NSCA journals and abstracts and works as the NSCA’s Rocky Mountain Region Director and Colorado State Director. MusclePharm hosts NSCA events including certification exams at its corporate headquarters. MusclePharm has repeatedly exhibited unethical behavior by falsely claiming NSF certification or marks, unauthorized use of the CrossFit name, and is currently being sued for fraud by overstating protein content by over twice the independently tested protein in one of their supplements. Additionally, MusclePharm has undergone an SEC investigation for questionable financial practices and appears to be at the brink of financial collapse. Perhaps most disturbing of all is that executives with both MusclePharm and Bodybuilding.com (the DeLuca brothers) pled guilty to disguising anabolic steroids or steroid clones in supplements.

The NSCA is principally a strength and conditioning organization, not a fitness company. As such, NSCA attempts to educate and influence strength and conditioning coaches. These coaches train athletes who undergo drug testing. A supplement that claims a false certification, or worse, a supplement that’s a disguised steroid, could get an athlete suspended, or worse. For example, CrossFit Games athlete Richard Bohlken failed an out-of-competition drug test “due to unknowingly taking a contaminated workout supplement provided by his sponsor FitnEssential.” Bohlken was thus suspended from the 2015 Reebok CrossFit Games season.

NSCA-certified strength and conditioning coaches must wonder why NSCA is putting their careers at risk by permitting Musclepharm and Bodybuilding.com exhibitions at NSCA conferences.

A Musclepharm booth at an NSCA conference: https://twitter.com/DGriffs5/status/487666710594330624

About the Author: John T. Weatherly has undergraduate and graduate degrees in exercise science. He was a research assistant to the former Head of Sports Physiology for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) and has helped with conditioning programs for athletes in Olympic sports as well as professional baseball, college football, and an NBA player. In the 90’s, John published and reviewed articles for the NSCA and was an NSCA media contact on the sport of baseball. He helped initiate the first study on a rotary inertia exercise device at the University of Southern California (USC) and has consulted with the exercise industry on various topics, including vibration.

An Update on Fitness Licensure

ACSM and NSCA would like to threaten CrossFit Chesapeake’s coaches with jail time for training this woman.

It’s time to update the CrossFit affiliate community on the ACSM, NSCA and USREPS’ schemes. This year the Russells’ Blog exposed an international conspiracy to defame, extort and criminalize CrossFit affiliates. Domestically, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) intend to criminalize the CrossFit affiliate model.

This scheme is called licensure. ACSM and NSCA have joined the US Registry of Exercise Professionals (USREPS) to promote licensure.

CrossFit Inc.’s competitors are lobbying the government to criminalize all fitness trainers who don’t acquire certifications from ACSM, NSCA or other similar organizations. If these bills are implemented, the police will charge a CrossFit L1 trainer who teaches his client to squat with a “misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.”

It’s not a coincidence that the organizations making the most noise about fake CrossFit injuries are the same ones lobbying for government favors. The CrossFit injury myths are a way for ACSM and NSCA to justify their pleas for licensure.

The media has missed this story. Washington, D.C. has passed the nation’s first fitness licensure bill, yet even D.C.’s local press failed to notice.

Since our announcement, CrossFit has taken steps towards ending this threat. We’ve also made some important discoveries that reveal USREPS’ true aims. They plan to force every CrossFit trainer to either take their certifications or go to jail. Peaceful coexistence between CrossFit Inc. and USREPS is thus impossible.

CrossFit Enemy #1: USREPS’ Graham Melstrand: https://www.acefitness.org/images/aboutace/grahamm.jpg

ACSM and NSCA Collude through USREPS

ACSM, NSCA, the American Council on Exercise (ACE) and other CrossFit competitors are colluding through the US Registry of Exercise Professionals (USREPS) and its advocacy arm, the Coalition for the Registration of Exercise Professionals (CREP).

Below is USREPS’ strategy and history.

Source: http://www.usreps.org/AnalyticsReports/CREP%20NIRSA%20Poster.JPG

USREPS and its related organizations are the principal forces lobbying to criminalize CrossFit affiliates. And USREPS’ lobbyists don’t just influence bills – they sometimes write the bills themselves. For example, USREPS sends its “Sample Legislation” to state legislators. A Georgia state congressman submitted the USREPS’ drafted bill verbatim in 2014. The bill didn’t pass, but USREPS is still trying to curry favor with politicians to pass its sample legislation.

In any polity where fitness licensure is under consideration, USREPS and/or its members have influenced the local politicians. In 2015, the two licensure threats to CrossFit affiliates are taking place in Washington D.C. and Massachusetts. We’ve found USREPS’ fingerprints on both bills.

Washington, D.C. Update
Washington D.C. passed the nation’s first fitness licensure bill, The Omnibus Health Regulation Amendment Act of 2013.

Current USREPS members ACSM and the National Council on Strength and Fitness met with the D.C. government as early as 2008 to influence this legislation. 

The USREPS graphic also states that on August 14th, 2014, USREPS flew out to D.C. to meet with the D.C. government. Check out the meeting’s minutes here.

The D.C. city government was unable to implement this bill. This June, the D.C. City Council will revise the bill and release a “technical bill.”

Massachusetts Update

Return to the USREPS graphic and refer to the “Milestone Prior to Incorporation” section. It states that ACE, ACSM, NSCA and NCSF representatives met with a Massachusetts politician to discuss House Bill 1005.

HB 1005 was the 2010 version of this year’s Massachusetts House Bill 185. And this year’s HB 185 is nearly identical to HB 1005, the 2010 bill that ACSM and NSCA influenced. HB 185 requires either an educational degree in an exercise-related field, or an NCCA-accredited certification. NCCA-accredited certifications include those of USREPS members ACSM, NSCA and ACE, but not the CrossFit L1 course, which is ANSI-accredited.

Representatives Robert Fennell (D) and Louis Kafka (D) introduced HB 185 in January 2015, but the bill hasn’t progressed since then. If it does, we’ll let the CrossFit community know.

Louis Kafka sponsored the MA fitness licensure bill: https://malegislature.gov/People/Profile/llk1

USREPS Writes its Owns Legislation

CrossFit has acquired the sample legislation that USREPS wrote and sent to politicians. You can review it here. While this sample legislation isn’t currently under consideration anywhere, it indicates USREPS’ aspirations. USREPS met with D.C. and Massachusetts politicians; this bill indicates what they aimed to achieve in those meetings.

Note the criminal punishment section:

Any person who violates Code Section 43-XX-7 shall be guilty of practicing as a personal fitness trainer without a current registration and shall be punished as for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature by the imposition of a fine not to exceed $XX, or confinement for not more than XX months, or both.

In Georgia, the state that introduced this USREPS bill last year, a “misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature” is punished by up to 12 months in jail. A trainer convicted of teaching air squats without an ACSM, NSCA or other similar certification will also pay up to $5,000 in fines.

Also note that USREPS’ legislation is carefully designed to include group CrossFit classes as “personal” training. It defines a “personal fitness trainer” as someone who,

… develops and implements an individualized approach to exercise using premeditated, non- choreographed exercise programs, utilizing collaborative goal-setting, behavioral coaching techniques, and other strategies to increase self-efficacy, motivation, self-regulation, overcoming barriers to change and technical coaching and instruction in physical fitness and conditioning for an individual client, or organized groups of clients, who require pre-participation evaluation or instruction prior to engaging in the exercise regimen.

Group exercise instructors are exempt from the legislation, but USREPS also uses a peculiar definition of group exercise that excludes CrossFit classes. Its sample legislation states that,

‘Group Exercise Instructor’ means a person with specific qualifications, who receives compensation, to provide choreographed exercise leadership to music, with or without modifications for participants, using varied pieces of equipment to groups of people.

USREPS carefully drafted this sample legislation to impose itself on CrossFit trainers. This bill forces all CrossFit L1 trainers to choose between paying for a useless certifications and risking a prison term and thousands of dollars of fines.

USREPS must think most CrossFit trainers will only pay for ACSM or NSCA certifications if the sole alternative is jail time.

CrossFit affiliates such as CrossFit 858 are improving their clients’ health. USREPS would like to make this a crime.

ACSM and NSCA Aren’t Qualified to Help CrossFit
Dr. Adam Schulte studied the conjecture that ACSM, NSCA, and similar certifications make CrossFit training safer. He found no support for it.

After surveying 569 CrossFit affiliate members, Dr. Schulte found “there was no significant association between the level of certification and self-reported injury.” In other words, taking classes from trainers with certifications from companies such as ACSM and NSCA made no significant difference on injury outcomes.

Schulte’s study is called Level of Coaching Certification as a Determinant of Self-Reported Injury in CrossFit Athletes.

Is this surprising? In order for NSCA and ACSM to improve CrossFit training, they’d first have to learn basic facts such as what the word “parallel” means.

The NSCA’s third edition of Essentials of Strength and Conditioning presents the following as the “Lowest squat position” and claims that it places the “thighs…parallel to the floor” (p.350-351).

According to the NSCA this is a full squat.

Grand Strategy:

We will get into further detail on this topic in later blog posts and Journal articles, but let’s briefly consider USREPS’ grand strategy. For USREPS, fitness licensure is step one. Their long term goal is to insert all fitness training into the health care system.

ACE states that USREPS/CREP is,

established to secure recognition of registered exercise professionals as qualified to deliver physical activity programming as a preventive service within the healthcare system.

Before USREPS existed, Coca-Cola and the ACSM began this initiative with the “Exercise is Medicine” campaign. See page 26 here to examine Coca-Cola’s introduction to the ACSM program.

Coca-Cola, ACSM and USREPS share the same goal: to make gyms more like doctors’ offices. Under the Coca-Cola/USREPS plan, doctors will refer their clients to fitness trainers and health care coverage will pay for the fitness training. The government will only allow trainers with ACSM, NSCA and other similar certifications to practice in this scenario.

Coca-Cola and ACSM want to get government favors for their chosen fitness certifications: http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/doctors-orders-exercise-can-save-your-life

CrossFit Inc. Protects its Affiliates from USREPS

CrossFit’s counter-attack is occurring at multiple levels. Above USREPS is the International Confederation of Registries for Exercise Professionals. In 2014, ICREPS’ chairman Richard Beddie falsely accused CrossFit of killing six people and leaving an Australian man paralyzed. Beddie then contacted CrossFit affiliates and let them know he could help them with their bad publicity if they partnered with ICREPS. CrossFit sued Beddie for this extortion attempt.

CrossFit Inc. recently added ICREPS as a defendant to its lawsuit against Beddie. Since then, Stuart Turner has replaced Beddie as ICREPS chairman. It’s not clear yet if Chairman Turner will continue Beddie’s extortion strategy.

How can floundering fitness certifiers such as ACSM and NSCA afford a nation-wide lobbying strategy? The most obvious funding sources for the anti-CrossFit campaign are Coca-Cola and Pepsico. Coca-Cola has supported ACSM’s advocacy efforts for at least eight years. Pepsico is the largest sponsor of NSCA and ACSM through its subsidiary Gatorade. In fact, Gatorade advertiser Michael Bergeron was the lead author of the first baseless ACSM attack on CrossFit. 

A rash of deaths from over-hydration has forced Gatorade to back down from its extreme hydration guidelines. How useful will ACSM be to Gatorade now that it can’t tell athletes to drink “as much as tolerable” to prevent heat illness and cramps?

As 60 Minutes covered this Sunday, CrossFit Inc. sued the NSCA for knowingly publishing fraudulent injury claims about a CrossFit affiliate. This suit met considerable success and no meaningful opposition. All relevant subjects from the study have sworn to federal court that the NSCA study’s injury claims are false.

As long as USREPS pursues this strategy it can not coexist with CrossFit Inc. The two organizations conflict at a fundamental level. CrossFit Inc. will not let USREPS turn its affiliates into criminals for making their clients healthier. And CrossFit Inc. will not let USREPS members publish fabricated claims about injuries to justify government favors. CrossFit Inc. has hired “one of the most powerful” lobbying firms to end USREPS’ threat to its affiliates. Stay tuned.

CrossFit Games Masters competitor Shellie Eddington participated in the NSCA study conducted at CrossFit 614. She never heard anyone talking about injuries.

If you’re sore after a workout, are you injured? Strangely, it depends whom you ask. The National Strength and Conditioning Association’s (NSCA) Tactical Strength and Conditioning (TSAC) program says soreness is an injury. CrossFit, NSCA board members, and others disagree with the NSCA TSAC program, stating that soreness is a normal part of training.

To clarify, our subject is not extreme muscular soreness. Extreme muscular soreness, especially paired with discolored urine and/or swelling, may indicate rhabdomyolysis. Today we’re just talking about muscular soreness, unaccompanied by other symptoms. This is known as DOMS: Delayed Onset Muscular Soreness. It’s the feeling you in your glutes the day after 400m of walking lunges, or how your lats feel the day after “Angie.”

According to the NSCA: Soreness = Injury

According to the NSCA, Katrin and every other Regional athlete is injured.

According to Dr. Katie Sell of the NSCA Tactical Strength and Conditioning Program, “Delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) is one of the most common sport-related injuries.”

The topic of Dr. Sell’s article is “Decreasing Injury Risk During Physical Training.” Dr. Sell’s article is par for the NSCA course. It contains the normal veiled attacks on CrossFit and sponsor-approved hydration handwringing. But what sticks out is Dr. Sell’s soreness = injury assumption. If soreness is indeed an “injury,” should trainers try to minimize the rate of soreness?

Dr. Sell is a member of the NSCA Tactical Strength and Conditioning Special Interest Group (SIG) Executive Council. As such Dr. Sell represents and determines the views of the NSCA TSAC program.

And Sell has company. Guy Leahy wrote an article in the TSAC report entitled “Evidence-Based Physical Training: Do CrossFit or P90x meet the cut?” Leahy grouped P90X and CrossFit into one category, “Extreme Conditioning Programs” (ECPs). Leahy admitted he lacked data to support the idea that CrossFit programming causes an elevated rate of injury. Nonetheless, he alleged that,

Injury incidences from ECPs are unknown beyond isolated case reports of exertional rhabdomyolysis (ERM) and delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) (3,19).

Like Sell, Leahy classifies cases of soreness as “injury incidents.” This assumption permits Leahy to classify everyone who became sore after training at a CrossFit affiliate as injured.

Yet soreness is not unique to CrossFit. Bodybuilders, powerlifters, strongmen, endurance athletes, and other athletes often report muscular soreness. Are they all injured?

Once you step outside NSCA’s TSAC program, fitness authors take a more realistic approach to soreness. You need not go far.

The NSCA’s TSAC Conference: http://www.beyondthefiremagazine.com/2014/04/27/nsca-tsac-2014-review/

No, Soreness is Not Actually an Injury

As Lon Kilgore’s “You Be the Judge” series has exposed, the NSCA’s alleged authority figures are inconsistent on many topics. Soreness is no exception.

NSCA board member Brad Schoenfeld and NSCA-certified trainer Bret Contreras addressed soreness in their article, “Is Postexercise Muscle Soreness a Valid Indicator of Muscular Adaptations?”

In their abstract Schoenfeld and Contreras note that “Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness is a common side effect of physical activity.” If they consider this “common side effect” an injury, they don’t say so.

In fact, Schoenfeld and Contreras warn that avoiding soreness may blunt the adaptation to exercise,

… common strategies to minimize DOMS, such as increasing training frequency, adhering to the same exercise selection, performing concentric-only exercises, and performing solely exercises that stress short muscle lengths, can help maintain short-term athletic performance, they may ultimately compromise hypertrophic adaptations by blunting EIMD (Exercise Induced Muscle Damage.

Avoiding soreness may mean avoiding gains. To be sure, the authors also warn of the opposite extreme, noting,

high levels of soreness should be regarded as detrimental because it is a sign that the lifter has exceeded the capacity for the muscle to efficiently repair itself. Moreover, excessive soreness can impede the ability to train optimally and decrease motivation to train.

Dr. Tony Webster, Ph.D. in Exercise Physiology and professor at Camosun College, made a similar point about avoiding soreness in his CrossFit Journal article, “Muscle Damage and Soreness: An Overview”

muscle damage and soreness are essential and probably unavoidable pre-requisites for optimal muscular adaptation. If you have an aversion to feeling sore, you can either stop doing CrossFit (not an option for most!) or reframe your attitude.

Even the American College of Sports Medicine’s Foundations of Strength Training and Conditioning textbook acknowledges soreness as a normal response to training. Describing Hans Selye’s General Adaptation Syndrome, they state,

The initial phase is the alarm phase (sometimes referred to as the shock phase) and consists of both shock and soreness. Performance during this phase will decrease. This would be synonymous to the initial effects a workout has on the athlete. The second phase is physiological adaptation to this new stimulus. The body adapts to the new training stimulus and an improvement in performance ensues. Once the body has adapted, no further adaptations will take place unless the stimulus is altered.

Soreness precedes adaptation, in the ACSM’s description.

Cui Bono: Who Benefits?

If soreness is widely accepted as a standard component of safe and effective training, why does NSCA’s TSAC program strangely classify soreness as an injury? This position is inconsistent with what NSCA officials have said. If taken seriously, the “soreness equals injury” assumption would make the injury rate in CrossFit and any other effective fitness program nearly 100%. Perhaps that’s the point.

NSCA and ACSM have presented no evidence that their certified trainers achieve results with their clients that CrossFit trainers fail to match. So why would the government mandate NSCA or ACSM certifications to teach CrossFit classes? The NSCA’s lobbying excuse is “safety.”

Via the NSCA: http://www.nsca.com/uploadedFiles/NSCA/Resources/PDF/Publications/TSAC/TSAC_Report_32_NSCA.pdf

Don’t Find Enough Injuries? Change the Definition of Injury

Remember Gatorade’s Michael Bergeron and the CHAMP editorial he and his colleagues penned? 

The CHAMP editorial claimed a “potential emerging problem of disproportionate musculoskeletal injury risk” in CrossFit. And yet it confessed that “short-and long-term physiological, functional, and readiness outcomes or safety of ECPs has not been carefully studied.”

So the ACSM/Gatorade/CHAMP/NSCA  tried publishing unsubstantiated concerns about CrossFit’s injury risk. This scheme didn’t work – the US military remained CrossFit’s single largest client.

CHAMP published its editorial in 2011. Four years later, we have a body of published studies regarding CrossFit: Hak, Giordano and Wiesenthal, the Army Brigade study, Henrich, etc. What have they found?

No published evidence supports the ACSM/NSCA conjecture that CrossFit causes an elevated rate of injury. All available evidence contradicts ACSM and NSCA’s CrossFit conjecture.

In 2013 the NSCA knowingly published fabricated injury data about CrossFit. That didn’t work, either. CrossFit uncovered the fraud. The subjects the NSCA study claimed injured have all sworn to the court that they were not injured in the course of the study, and never told the researchers they were.

This is a major problem for the NSCA, since they want the government to mandate their certifications in hopes of preventing injuries from CrossFit trainers. NSCA TSAC columnist Guy Leahy reports that a major concern with CrossFit is that its trainers

are not required to possess the advanced training available from universities or esteemed organizations such as the NSCA or ACSM.

(Esteemed?)

To maintain the appearance of science, NSCA is trying create some evidence of an elevated injury rate in CrossFit. Now NSCA officials claim soreness is an injury. This assumption allows the NSCA to document abundant cases of “injuries” in CrossFit affiliates.

Unfortunately, classifying soreness as an injury contradicts the NSCA’s own material, and common sense.

This is a real injury, but US Marine Chris Bannister didn’t let it stop him from doing 50 L pull-ups for time.

Editor’s Note: Derek Fields has worked on the Russells’ support team for a couple of years. Today he writes about what it takes to become a USREPS-registered personal trainer. USREPS is composed of ACSM, NSCA, ACE, and other aspiring competitors of CrossFit. USREPS is lobbying the government to impose its certifications on the entire fitness industry.

The ACSM Squat: http://muscleandbrawn.com/forum/general-fitness-health/17211-how-acsm-teaches-you-squat.html

Now that the Russells have exposed the fitness licensure plans promoted by CrossFit’s competitors it’s time for a close examination of some of the organizations promoting licensure and their true motives.

Readers of the Russells’ blog are already familiar with the United States Registry of Exercise Professionals (USREPS), the coalition of 7 national fitness organizations that have come together to promote, as the name suggests, the registration of all exercise professionals (along with a handful of other goals). Are USREPS and its member organizations really promoting fitness licensure to protect consumers, or is it possible that their motives are slightly less noble?

Those who push for licensure often claim that the fitness industry is like the lawless “Wild West” and that consumers desperately need protection. These are, oftentimes, the same people who call CrossFit dangerous, falsely accuse CrossFit of killing 6 people, and declare that the seminar and test format of the CrossFit Level 1 Trainer credential are woefully inadequate despite evidence to the contrary. Once again, anyone who follows the blog here will recognize that criticisms like these often come from some of USREPS’ member organizations: ACSM, NSCA, NETA, Cooper Institute, NCSF, ACE, and the Pilates Method Alliance. All these organizations have one thing in common in terms of their educational credentials – they’re accredited by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA). CrossFit’s Level 1 Trainer Seminar is, on the other hand, accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

The Cooper Institute’s squat: https://www.facebook.com/TheCooperInstitute/photos/pb.34668868878.-2207520000.1433252716./10153121288208879/?type=3&theater

The sample legislation we’ve seen from USREPS is similar to other fitness licensure bills we’ve seen in the past, which seek to grant licenses only to trainers who hold an NCCA-accredited credential and punish non-NCCA-accredited trainers with fines and/or jail time. Could it be the case though that the USREPS members really do educate their trainers more thoroughly and hold them to a higher standard?

If that were the case then perhaps USREPS could make the claim that licensure bills they’re pushing were in the consumer’s best interest. They might also need scary injury data (that wasn’t fraudulent) and would have to make the claim that sitting on the couch working toward heart disease was safer than working out with a trainer accredited through a body other than the NCCA, but that is a topic for another post. USREPS’ registered trainers will openly admit that licensure bills, if passed, will drive up the cost of training and make fewer trainers available. Anyone who was forced to sit through one economics lecture (and many who have never read anything on the subject) will understand that fewer trainers + higher cost of hiring trainers = fewer people working out and more people sitting on the couch working toward heart disease.

Few people, after objectively looking at the educational standards of some of USREPS members, which are NCCA-accredited, would contend that NCCA-accreditation and USREPS membership enforces a high standard for trainer education. ACE actually has a great comparison table that’s useful for examining not only themselves, but also all the other USREPS organizations that offer a personal trainer credential, except for NCSF.

Source: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/listing/2671955501119?r=1&kpid=2671955501119&cm_mmc=GooglePLA-_-TextBook_NotInStock_26To75-_-Q000000633-_-2671955501119

Here’s a breakdown of some of the costs, prerequisites, and exam characteristics for the six USREPS members that offer personal trainer certifications (the Pilates Method Alliance offers credentials that are relevant specifically to Pilates rather than general training).

USREPS Member Organizations Certified Personal Trainer Requirements

Anyone looking at those requirements should be able to see some rather surprising numbers. First, understand that these organizations all operate under a self-study model and that a candidate for a CPT credential does not have to use any study materials or receive any kind of hands-on instruction. You only have to take the exam.

In as little as 1.5 hours you too can become a USREPS-registered Personal Trainer. How far will USREPS’ “standards” go to protect consumers? Or is USREPS’ agenda not about protecting consumers at all?

Source: https://www.facebook.com/NCSFCPT/photos/pb.227208918713.-2207520000.1433257969./10152708532923714/?type=3&theater

How many CrossFit L1 trainers, or trainers from other outside organizations, could pass these tests without even looking at USREPS members’ textbooks? Though supplying course material isn’t some profound educational contribution, USREPS’ organizations can at least claim that they add some value to the process in cases where trainers study their materials and actually learn something from them. However, if they’re doing little more than collecting a fee for a test then they aren’t simply upholding a rather weak educational standard. In fact, they’re acting more like the mob. They’re trying to use their lobbying power to shake down personal trainers for money.

267,000 “fitness trainers” work in the United States, as of 2012 according to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS also estimates that the field will grow by 13% by 2022, and other sources like IBISWorld, a business and industry intelligence resource, and CNN Money list the number of “personal trainer” jobs in the US between 259,000 (IBISWorld 2015) and 251,000 (CNN Money 2012) while listing higher future growth rates than the BLS. Given CrossFit’s staggering growth in past years and the fact that there are over 100,000 CrossFit L1 trainers as of the writing of this post both the estimated number of trainers and the predicted growth rate for personal training might be quite low. Let’s be conservative and undercut the BLS’ estimate from 2012 and work off of the assumption that there are 250,000 personal trainers in the US. In that case, how much do USREPS’ members stand to gain from licensure in the U.S.? Here’s a very conservative estimate:

250,000 trainers x $249 NCSF exam price = $62,250,000 potential USREPS revenue

Keep in mind that NCSF has the LOWEST standard exam price (ACSM charges $279 for non-members, and we know only a fraction of trainers are ACSM members eligible for their discount price). So, using a conservative trainer estimate and the lowest standard CPT exam price from the group examined in the table above we see that USREPS member organizations stand to make a staggering $62 million if every trainer were forced to hold one of their credentials.

The 2015 ACSM Health and Fitness Summit: https://www.facebook.com/64402266263/photos/pb.64402266263.-2207520000.1433252375./10153303550061264/?type=3&theater

Yes, a fraction of the 250,000 estimated personal trainers are already certified through a USREPS member organization, but that means that one of the seven groups already got revenue from them. It’s impossible with the statistics available (some of the 7 member organizations do not disclose how many trainers they have) to estimate how many trainers already have the credentials they’d need under fitness licensure. Note that the $62 million estimate doesn’t take into account the higher exam prices of other USREPS members and assumes that these trainers did not purchase a single study resource.

If we account for trainers taking some of the more expensive exams and purchasing some study materials the potential revenue number skyrockets. Most of the organizations offer an exam and study materials package that ends up costing around $500, but that’s a lower estimate and CPT candidates can currently spend up to $899 for a premium exam and study package from the Cooper Institute. Since that number is at the high end of the spectrum we’ll work off of the $500 per trainer number.

250,000 trainers x $500 for exam and study materials = $125,000,000 potential USREPS revenue

Using a more realistic number for an exam and study materials increases USREPS member organizations’ potential revenue to $125,000,000. Keep in mind that this is not total organizational revenue or revenue gained from offering a new and improved product that helps customers and beats out competitors, but simply the potential extra revenue gained from passing a licensure bill that essentially grants certain organizations an oligopoly (the group form of a monopoly).

And if trainers think they can deal with licensure just by taking a meaningless certification, consider that USREPS’ bills create state fitness boards as well. This is a first step towards USREPS’ members regulating how personal trainers practice and what they teach. Will USREPS’ mandate ACSM hydration guidelines next? We can also expect that a USREPS oligopoly would further collude to raise certification prices on trainers. The trainers would have no choice but to pay these artificially elevated rates.

So, is USREPS’ licensure lobbying really about protecting consumers? Or is it about protecting a few groups from competition, concentrating benefits for a select few and dispersing costs across all Americans in the form of higher prices for personal training? And won’t the smaller supply and greater cost of fitness training mean less fitness for Americans? Take it from an NSCA credential holder who disagrees with the means of licensure but supports what he believes is their true end:

Source: https://twitter.com/CoachGeoffB/status/602910179454103552

Of the many interactions we had at the American College of Sports Medicine’s 2015 meeting, none were as enlightening as our conversation with Bob Oppliger. Bob is the chair of ACSM’s Health Science Policy Committee (read: chief of lobbying), and we found him standing in front of an exhibit titled “ACSM Advocacy.” After a brief conversation on what legislation the ACSM is currently lobbying for, I turned the discussion toward fitness trainer licensure.

It’s no secret that ACSM supports legislation that would license personal trainers. As a member of US Registry of Exercise Professionals, the ACSM supports state-level legislation that would make it illegal to operate as a fitness trainer with only CrossFit credentials.

The narrative provided as justification for this type of legislation is simple: trainers that don’t have nationally accredited certifications are dangerous to the public, therefore we should regulate the industry. For example, the The Council of the District of Columbia’s Committee on Health and Human Services cited  “anecdotal reports of injuries” as the motive for its licensure bill passed last year. 

This narrative ignores that CrossFit’s Level One Certificate Course is internationally-accredited by ANSI, ignores that all published studies on CrossFit’s injury rate found it to be safer than running, and ignores the only existing study on CrossFit trainer credentials and associated injury rates, which found no difference in risk between trainers with multiple credentials and those who had only the CrossFit L1.

This begs the question: Why would these organizations push for anti-competitive legislation based on completely false claims of injury associated with CrossFit trainers? Oppliger was happy to provide us with the ACSM’s real motive, one that is entirely different than that provided to the public. See for yourself in this video, or read the transcript found below.

Transcript

BERGER: I’ve read something about the regulation of personal trainers for states. Does that have anything to do with that process?

OPPLIGER: Well, so I, ACSM sooner or later will probably be involved in what simply – what our constituents that are involved with licensure –

BERGER: Right.

OPPLIGER: So yeah, and that’s basically a state-level policy decision. So every state has to come up with whatever it would be –

BERGER: What it means to be licensed, the testing process –

OPPLIGER: Right, so it’d be the same process that nursing goes through, for the physicians. Every state determines. Where ACSM, well where there would be a couple levels where ACSM would be *unintelligible* what constitutes certification?

BERGER: Right.

OPPLIGER: And so in some areas that’s better defined than in other areas and then, so with the concussion legislation for example, we developed some model legislation that, model legislation says it should have something about this and something about this and something about that. Well the same thing would apply in a licensure situation.

BERGER: OK

OPPLIGER: So you could characterize –

BERGER: You would provide some general outlines for what the legislation would look like, and then the state would then act on that in whatever way they wanted to or not.

OPPLIGER: Well, and then, and this is where – you’re from Michigan – or Alabama

BERGER: No, Alabama.

OPPLIGER: So we would find out who the key contacts are in Alabama and then put you guys on the task.

BERGER: OK.

OPPLIGER: So there would probably be some level of input right there for people within the state.

BERGER: So could the insurance concept of being able to use your flexible health savings account or flexible spending account for personal training or fitness classes, could that be done without licensure? Is it possible that –

OPPLIGER: Well yeah, that, it’s a matter of what, how you wanna define *unintelligible*

BERGER: OK. And are there any areas, and states, any bills that are currently active, that the ACSM supports, that are working toward licensure?

OPPLIGER: Not that I’m aware of.

BERGER: Because I know, isn’t the ACSM working, do you have a relationship with USREPS, the Registry of Exercise Professionals?

OPPLIGER: I can’t spe.. don’t know.

BERGER: OK, because I think they’re working toward licensure.

OPPLIGER: Right.

BERGER: I wondered if you knew anything about their progress.

OPPLIGER: I don’t.

BERGER: Do you know anything about CrossFit? About what we do? I was just wondering –

OPPLIGER: I know the name. I don’t know what you do.

BERGER: I was just curious because –

OPPLIGER: Well you’re – well, go ahead.

BERGER: Well, our company has Level 1 certificate course that we use to credential trainers. We also have a Level 2 certification – Level 3 certification, Level 2 course and Level 3 certification, and that process is internationally accredited through ANSI, and the legislation that I’ve seen proposed by USREPS and in some of the states that not necessarily have active bills but have had bills that have been tabled or have been rejected all look like they were specifically trying to avoid giving us a recognition of our credential because it’s international and not ACSM or NSCA or –

OPPLIGER: I can’t speak to any of that per se.

BERGER: OK.

OPPLIGER: But that whatever, third of our members are involved with outreach, I mean outreach, and so at some point I can see *unintelligible*  be involved.

One of the things as you probably know, America’s Affordable Care Act has a lot of preventative health care parts to it

BERGER: Right.

OPPLIGER: And at some point if they ever get the thing going the way it should.

BERGER: Yeah

OPPLIGER: I mean, the doctor’s not gonna’ do the training. He’s gonna’ contract out, so the issue is going to be who –

BERGER: Who’s allowed to get that business. Right.

OPPLIGER: And the second part is –

BERGER: So it’s better to be on the bus rather than off of it.

OPPLIGER: Yes.

BERGER: Get the state to make sure you’re on the bus so that you don’t lose out on the insurance money.

OPPLIGER: And the second part of that’s just maybe not as obvious to some I think, but to me it is, is that you’re also, when you’re licensed, you can charge more money.

BERGER: You can charge more. Yeah.

OPPLIGER: Yeah so –

BERGER: Because you have a credential that people recognize, it carries authority,

OPPLIGER: So there some value to it.

RUSS GREENE: And there’s a lower supply of trainers too, right?

OPPLIGER: Well, Well I mean, it creates a whole new market. It’s a whole –

BERGER: It’s a much smaller group of trainers that are credentialed that – you look more professional.

OPPLIGER: Well –

BERGER: It’s not just anybody off the street.

OPPLIGER: It’s like any other industry. So the nursing industry went through all this. Physicians went through this 100 years ago, nurses went through it 50 years ago. Physical therapists went through it at some point. So that’s kind of the natural progression of professions.

BERGER: I’ve got you.

OPPLIGER: So, at some point people in the fitness industry are gonna’ need to come up with some way of saying “We know more about this than Joe Blow.” And the way you do that is through a credential that has weight. Gravitas.

BERGER: And the way to give it that recognition is through licensure.

OPPLIGER: Yeah. It’s not gonna’ happen tomorrow –

BERGER: Oh no. I hope not.

OPPLIGER: Well, it’s gonna’ take a lot of work. *unintelligible*

BERGER: What can I do to get some more information on this if you have, do you have an email list?

OPPLIGER: Well, I gave you this.

BERGER: OK, I’ll hold onto this.

OPPLIGER: And then we send out periodicals on this.

BERGER: OK.

OPPLIGER: So if you have yours. So the guy on here, this guy is our Vice President for Health Policy.

BERGER: OK.

OPPLIGER: So if you have questions, if you want information, he’s available as a resource.

BERGER: OK.

OPPLIGER: So *unintelligible*. And if you have questions get ahold of us and we may or may not be able to help you.

BERGER: Thanks Bob, I appreciate your time. Take care.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Scotty Butcher of the BOSS Strength Institute submitted this research review to the Russells’ Blog. In this article, Dr. Butcher critiques a newly-published study in the NSCA’s Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.

I recently read with great interest a new paper led by Dr. Andrew Jagim, Assistant Professor of Exercise & Sport Science at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, titled “The physical demands of multi modal training competitions and their relationship to measures of performance.” They wanted to know what the physical demands of multimodal training (MMT) competitions were and if there was a relationship between those demands and selected measures of athletic performance.

Researchers are starting to study functional fitness competitions.

The Study

Let me first get this out of the way: the MMT the authors are referring to is a fitness competition held at a CrossFit affiliate, even though they only mention CrossFit itself in the reference section. The authors are not members of the CrossFit community. This was not a CrossFit competition such as the CrossFit Games or CrossFit Invitational, since CrossFit Inc. did not sanction it. The competition lasted a single day and involved three events:

1) a workout exactly the same as the CrossFit WOD “Helen” (3 rounds of 400m run, 21 KBS, and 12 pull ups)
2) a 1RM Thruster event
3) a long chipper-like grinder involving 10 reps stations of OHS, box jump overs, thrusters, power cleans, toes-to-bar, and burpee chest-to-bar pullups, then repeating the first five in reverse order.

It’s not mentioned in the paper, but I contacted Dr. Jagim and he confirmed that this competition took place in a CrossFit box and used CrossFit Level 1 Trainers as judges. The participants were CrossFitters with at least six months of CrossFit experience.

There were 18 participants (10 males), who averaged 38 years of age (range 21-52) with fairly low VO₂max scores (average of 38 ml/kg/min with a standard deviation of 7; which means that about 68% of the subjects fell between 31 and 45 ml/kg/min). It is interesting to note that the female participants had a much lower VO₂max (33 ml/kg/min) than the males (42 ml/kg/min). You’ll note that these participant data have a large individual variation, but are at about an average or lower level of cardiovascular fitness for healthy individuals.

The participants completed a baseline testing day which involved testing their body composition (muscle and fat mass), vertical jump height and VO₂max. Two to ten days later, participants completed the competition, during which the researchers examined their heart rate (HR), blood lactate and rate of perceived exertion responses, while the judges recorded their time or final 1RM. The researchers used the baseline VO₂/energy expenditure data and heart rate responses to calculate the energy expenditure and VO₂ responses during each event.

This study examined if VO2Max results and vertical jump tests correlated with fitness competition performance.

The main results were:

1) Average event scores for events 1-3 were 11:15 min, 165 lbs, and 7:18 min.

2) Events 1 and 3 resulted in average heart rate responses of 92 and 95% of maximum, respectively, indicating a large cardiovascular response to the events.

3) Change in lactate (a marker of the degree of anaerobic work performed) for events 1 and 3 were 12 and 10, respectively. The researchers state that these lactate changes represent values similar to those obtained by competitive martial artists during their sport.

4) There were no associations between the HR, energy expenditure, or lactate responses during the competition and the baseline physiological data.

5) The only associations found for performance data were between the event scores (time to completion or 1RM load) and baseline VO₂max and muscle (jumping) power for all three events. In other words, the athletes with greater VO2maxes, and those who jumped higher, did better on average in the fitness competition. Muscle mass also had a small association with performance of events 1 and 3. Therefore, the authors concluded that a combination of muscle power and VO₂max contributed the most to MMT performance and suggested that it may be beneficial to increase VO₂max and lower body muscle power to improve in MMT competition.

My Take

This is a neat little study which, to my knowledge, is the first to quantify physiological responses in CrossFit participants during a fitness competition, although some researchers have previously quantified some basic responses during CrossFit workouts. The high heart rates and lactate values during events 1 and 3 are certainly no surprise to anyone who has done Helen or a grinding chipper, but it is nice to see these results quantified. This is the main positive finding in the study.

Examining the correlative (association) data is interesting, but a bit tricky for several reasons. First, as mentioned, there is a large variation in the participant characteristics in regards to both age and VO₂max values. In addition to these characteristic data points, if you compare the event 1 scores to the Helen scores posted by elite CrossFit Games participants, it is obvious that the study population, with an average of 11:15, is far from elite. Even at the Regional level, average Helen scores are around 7:30-8:30.

Competitive CrossFit Games athletes can complete Helen over 4 minutes faster than this study’s average time.

All participants had a minimum of 6 months of CrossFit training experience, but there is no indication in the paper as to the exact level or quality of their experience. More experienced participants may not demonstrate such a relationship between the physiological characteristics and performance. Therefore, these results may not apply to those who already have high levels of strength or VO₂max, or to higher-level CrossFit athletes.

Second, use caution in interpreting the Jagim study’s estimates of energy expenditure during the competition. Although their method has been validated for moderate intensity physical activity, it may be inappropriate for high intensity or anaerobic work. Energy expenditure estimates that only use aerobic data have been shown to grossly underestimate energy expenditure during activities with a strong anaerobic component. When looking at their lactate responses for events 1 and 3, they state that the levels reported are similar to those obtained during other anaerobic events such as with competitive martial artists. Given the study participants were lower level CrossFit trainees, this comparison is likely invalid.

Rich Froning developed a VO2Max of 73.9 by training for the CrossFit Games: https://instagram.com/p/xpX-EGs0HE/

Third, contrary to their second purpose, there were no associations between physiological data collected during the competition (i.e. heart rate and lactate) and baseline fitness variables (i.e. VO₂max, body composition, and vertical jump power). Unfortunately, the authors do not address this in their discussion.

Only the final performance scores (i.e. event times and 1RM loads) correlated with baseline fitness data. This is a subtle, but important distinction. It is likely that those who perform better on competitive events (i.e. have greater work capacity) also will perform better on fitness testing. One goal of CrossFit training is to improve the ability of trainees to perform well on any physical test, and this may simply be an example of this.

Finally, and most important, the authors make an egregious error of causation in the interpretation of their correlation data. Because the performance scores were associated with muscle power and VO₂max, they state that training to focus on improving muscle power and/or VO₂max will enhance performance, particularly on Event 1, aka “Helen.” They later state that individuals with greater leg power and lean mass would be better suited for MMT (CrossFit, in other words).

A high VO2Max absent strength and skill won’t get you far in fitness competitions. http://oolrun.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ritzenheinVO2max.jpg

While this hasn’t been demonstrated with research, CrossFitters are well aware of the fact that training using CrossFit methodology has a large impact on aerobic abilities and muscle strength and power. It is very likely that CrossFit trainees will increase VO₂max with training, but I have a hard time believing that your performance on fitness competitions would increase if you trained solely to increase VO₂max without doing training designed to increase work capacity. Even in sedentary individuals, increases in VO₂max have no relationship with improvements in endurance performance. As I mentioned, assessing this in CrossFit athletes has not yet been reported empirically and would be a very interesting study to say the least.

The Bottom Line

In relatively low-trained CrossFit participants, muscle power and VO₂max have moderate to large associations with performance in a fitness competition. Whether or not this relationship holds true in more well-trained participants remains to be seen, as does whether or not training to focus on muscle power or VO₂max specifically would have any impact on performance in fitness competitions.

The Doctor at work.

Dr. Scotty Butcher, BScPT, PhD, ACSM-RCEP, is an Associate Professor at the University of Saskatchewan and co-owner of BOSS Strength Institute. He has over 15 years’ experience prescribing exercise to untrained clients and athletes alike. Formerly certified as a CSCS, dabbling in CrossFit training, and currently a budding competitive powerlifter, he has a passion for strength training and translates this to promoting quality exercise training and rehabilitation practices through research and education. Connect with Dr. Butcher on Twitter @InkedProfScotty.

Editor’s Note: Gatorade and MusclePharm would like to you think that American sport science exists. But when John Weatherly told us that American sport science was largely a myth, we were surprised. Consider the source – John helped with conditioning programs and research at the U.S. Olympic Training Center. But even former NSCA president Michael Stone argues that American sport science is a myth. If American sport science doesn’t exist, what exactly are the National Strength and Conditioning Association and American College of Sports Medicine doing?

In order to understand sport science it is necessary to provide background information and then define what sport science is. I will rely extensively on a presentation by former U.S. Olympic Committee Head of Sport Physiology, and former National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) President, Dr. Michael Stone. It is a subject Dr. Stone and I have great interest in and have discussed over a number of years. I thank Dr. Stone for allowing me to use and share material from his presentation. Throughout this article, I have referenced the specific slides in parentheses from Dr. Stone’s presentation that correspond to the material. In some instances, I have quoted the actual slides.

Former NSCA pres. Dr. Stone received NSCA awards for sport science and lifetime achievement.

We’ll start with a bang by quoting Dr. Stone on slide two:

From the outset it is essential to understand that most scientists believing that they are sport scientists are really not.

While interest in exercise, sport, and nutrition can be traced to ancient times (i.e. the Greeks), exercise science as a field of study began around 1900 and included areas such as exercise physiology, biomechanics, health, psychology, and what we now call sport science. It is important to note that other countries, particularly government-funded programs in the former Eastern Bloc (i.e. former USSR), started to study what we now call sport science at least partially as a political ploy to prove the superiority of Communism to the world. Much of Western sports training still uses concepts and is influenced by information from other countries such as the former USSR. For example see Yuri Verkoshansky’s website, or this EliteFTS article, Science of Lifting: Revisiting Matveyev.

Prior to approximately the last 15 years in the US, sport science was thought to be a part of exercise science (Slides 5-8). Exercise science and sport science are both formed off of the foundation of basic science and share some common aspects but there are very important differences between the two. Exercise science involves health and wellness, education, and research. While sport science also involves education and research, it does not include health & wellness. By health and wellness I’m referring to the fields and not keeping track of the health or wellness of athletes. Sport science involves monitoring and testing athletes as well as the strength and conditioning of athletes (Slide 9).

Testing grandmom on a treadmill may not prepare a scientist for helping a football team: http://davislifecareorg.startlogic.com/alter-g-anti-gravity-treadmill.html

The Importance of Sports

Turn on your local evening news and it’s news, weather and sports not news, weather and wellness. And if you don’t want to watch the news or weather, you can watch ESPN SportsCenter. I haven’t seen an hour-long program called HealthCenter on every day yet. Have you?

Schools from junior high through college compete in sports. Of course, there are also many pro teams in the US. Teams have fans that follow and identify with sports teams(some go too far and live vicariously through them). Sports can be a source of local community or school pride. In an Olympic year, they can also be a source of national pride (Slide 13).

The U.S. beat the Soviet Union in hockey a decade before it defeated the Soviet Union politically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_on_Ice

This was exemplified in the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, NY. Those who were alive in 1980 can recall the height of the Cold War and the sometimes stifling dominance of USSR athletes in the Olympics. The 1980 U.S. Olympic Ice Hockey Team upsetting the heavily favored Soviets in the Winter Games was a source of pride for Americans. This went way beyond sport! It was seen by many as good (Democracy) triumphing over evil (Communism).  Al Michaels’ dramatic call at the end of that game described it best: “Do you believe in miracles? Yes!”

That’s the power of sports. It can galvanize a school, local community, and even a nation. As an interesting side note, I recently heard former USOC Head of Biomechanics and a colleague of Dr. Stone’s – Dr. Bill Sands – say in an interview the original reason he wanted to work in sport science and help Olympic athletes was to “beat the commies.”

Competitive sports have a winner and losers. It’s not for recreation. Winning is important. This is why sport science is important (Slides 20-21).

Perhaps the U.S. needs to beat ISIS in the sport of fitness, before it beats it on the battlefield.

What is Sport Science?

Science is an attempt to better understand and predict objective reality, not a debate. Science tries to quantify variables with statistics to understand evidence. This does not mean statistics replaces reason but rather that they should be used to enhance reason (Slide 25). Most of the general public, including coaches, are not equipped to understand scientific articles and information. Therefore, scientists must be detectives to synthesize information. They also must translate scientific material.

Exercise science is largely focused on the mechanisms behind biological responses or adaptations to exercise or training. At U.S. universities, exercise science is mainly focused on wellness, adult fitness, and cardiac rehab programs (Slides 29-30).

In contrast, sport science is to improve sport performance (and equipment) via the use of scientific methods (Slide 31). Sport scientists use biology to understand sport (Slide 45).

An exercise scientist will be interested in health, have knowledge of clinical/medical/lab practices and problems, have discussions with physicians and be willing to be involved with research programs.

The sport scientist is interested in sport and the development of elite athletic performance. Regular discussions with coaches, athletes and sport medicine personnel are important for the sport scientist. The sport scientist must develop or use monitoring and research programs to provide constant, quick feedback. Sport scientists also need to understand politics along with training for improved performance. If possible, the sport scientist should be willing to train as the athletes do and become a part of the sport. This helps break down social barriers. Challenging accepted practices in the culture of a specific sport must be navigated with great tact and diplomacy by the sport scientist (Slide 51). Funding and whether administrators and coaches allow the sport scientist access to athletes can hinge on politics. Many times it can be necessary for sport scientists to educate and “sell” sport science to administrators and coaches (Slide 52).

Sport scientists work with a sport performance enhancement group (SPEG). This is depicted in Slide 55:

Source: http://www.sportscienceed.com/blog/from-the-archive-things-learned-in-40-years-of-sports-science-part-2-what-is-sport-science

The goal of the sport training process is to take the athlete as close to his or her genetic limits as possible. This is much different than recreational exercise for health and wellness (Slide 56).

The “Illusion” of Sport Science Programs

There are three slides from Dr. Stone’s presentation that I feel are particularly pertinent to the discussion on the myth of sport science in the US. I’d like to share them with all of you. The text on Slide 60 reads:

When Bill Sands and I worked together at the USOC we often discussed the remarkable abilities of world class athletes and how sad it was that students that were interested in sport science were often never exposed to high level performance or had the opportunity to test advanced athletes. It was not unusual to see astonishment on the faces of USOC interns the first time they saw a weightlifter squat 300 Kg or more, or a decathlete produce a 66 cm VJ from a force plate or an endurance athlete produce a maximum aerobic power of 80+ ml x kg x min with an RER of 1.3+.

It is quite clear, as a result of the right genetics and appropriate training, that advanced and elite athletes are psychologically and physiologically different from the average person and that these differences produce performances that are not normal and far beyond the capabilities of most athletes, much less the average population. Athletes that are committed, train, sometimes many hours per day for years, many use specialized diets, they do not participate in the usual social functions that lesser and non-athletes take part in and generally lead relatively regimented lives.

These observations dealing with the athlete environment highlight one of the problems with typical scientific studies that isolate or control subject environments. Studies must be carried out in which the complete environment of the athlete is taken into consideration. For example: observations of the effects of two different strength training protocols may produce very different results if one study was untrained subjects or even athletes but the training protocols were compared in isolation from other aspects of the athletes’ life (e.g. other aspects of training, practice etc.). Even a cursory look through the scientific literature clearly shows that there is very little comparative research on athletes while functioning in their complete environment.

No amount of treadmill testing will prepare you to coach an Olympian such as Chad Vaughn.

So we can observe that sport science is an academic field distinct from exercise science. But do our universities adequately instruct students in the distinct field of sport science? Dr. Marco Cardinale noted:

I strongly believe that many universities create in students the illusion that they can actually work in elite sport one day after completing an undergraduate and a postgraduate degree. This is not the case unfortunately, because in too many institutions students are not “exposed” to relevant topics, relevant practical experience and also relevant individuals with practical experience in such settings. In too many UK institutions offering sports science degrees, students are lectured by individuals that never worked in a sport (at any level) and/or have never had a significant role in elite sport.

Dr. Michael Stone concurred with Cardinale’s observation and added, “No doubt this observation applies directly to our situation in the USA.”

Academics lure students with the illusion of sport science.

Only One Complete Sport Science Program in the Country

Stone’s Slide 69 is “The Downfall of Sport Science – Coach Education in the USA (and other places).” It states that there is only,

… one university in the USA that is actually focused on sport science (and coach education) and that offers a complete course of study in sport science.

He’s talking about East Tennessee State University. As a consequence, there are only a “few sport scientists in USA (most are part time at best).”

Surprisingly there is very little money in American sport science. Stone notes that “Currently there is no direct source of funding solely for sport science,” but “there is for basic and exercise science (i.e. NIH, CDC, AHA, DARPA, NASA, etc. etc.).”

And scientists go where the funding is, so “most potential sport scientists become exercise scientists.” Sure, you may have heard of a “Sports Science Institute” or two, but these may not be what they claim to be. Resources and funding from sugary drink manufactures, supplement retailers and other companies “almost always come with strings – sometimes real, sometimes perceived and the funding is usually relatively small (< $25K) and research is narrowly focused.” For more information on this topic read Dr. Stone’s article “The Downfall of Sports Science in the United States.”

Up Next: What’s Stopping Sport Science?

Again, thanks to Dr. Stone for allowing me to highlight parts of his important presentation. Now that we know what sport science is we can explore issues that hamper its use in the U.S. This includes the absurd lack of integration between academic and athletic departments (with one exception) at our universities which suffocates sport science. We’ll also look more deeply into companies that sponsor organizations like the NSCA and claim to have “sports science institutes.”

Sports Science or Marketing Tool? http://www.fawley-bryant.com/Portfolio.aspx?udt_456_param_detail=3

About the Author: John T. Weatherly has undergraduate and graduate degrees in exercise science. He was a research assistant to the former Head of Sports Physiology for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) and has helped with conditioning programs for athletes in Olympic sports as well as professional baseball, college football, and an NBA player. In the 90’s, John published and reviewed articles for the NSCA and was an NSCA media contact on the sport of baseball. He helped initiate the first study on a rotary inertia exercise device at the University of Southern California (USC) and has consulted with the exercise industry on various topics, including vibration.