The Culture of Exercise Physiology
Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, MAM, FASEP, EPC
Professor, Department of Exercise Physiology
The College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN 55811
Recently, I was approached by a person who said: “Do you understand just how stupid you look? Do you know that you are a joke? No one and I mean no one has ever talked about your articles or your books. Tommy, you don’t exist. You have no idea, do you? No one cares about what you think. Sports medicine is in control of exercise physiology.”
Shocked at what the person said, I was taken back. No one has to tell me that I could do a better job. Every day, I wonder whether I am fooling myself. I believe that exercise physiologists can find their way out of sports medicine, but do they? The problem is in our internal maps, and rethinking our outmoded views. What I do know is that respect for the recent graduate who wants to work in exercise physiology is linked with a credible academic program. Exercise science, human performance, and kinesiology do not have viable career driven jobs waiting for graduates to fill.
The point then of my work, regardless of the criticism, is to change the system design that gives illegitimate power to sports medicine to control exercise physiology. Attention to the exercise physiologist’s rights to support his or her own professional organization is vital. This is why the ASEP leaders object when sports medicine stockholders claim dominion over the power of exercise as medicine. The sports medicine leaders understand the powerful language of ownership while exercise physiologists actually participate in giving it away.
Here we find not rhetoric but power by size that is acting in accordance with its own interests, revenues, and marketing. The recognition of this point by exercise physiologists is critical if they are to be acknowledged by society as the experts in use of exercise as medicine. This point is so critical to the future of exercise physiology that there needs to be a revolution of the mind. Change begins in the mind. What are exercise physiologists thinking? Are they interested in the professionalism of exercise physiology?
Thomas Paine [1] was right when he wrote: “…a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right….” Again, this is the point, isn’t it? There is nothing here complicated. It is a straight forward argument that is founded on common sense. If exercise physiologists do not question sports medicine’s rights over exercise physiology, it is just a matter of time that the “superficial appearance” of the same will be believed as their right to do so. For me personally, the custom of giving away exercise physiology without a fight is unimaginable. That is why I fight through my writings, however ridiculous others may see it. Unfortunately, they have become part of the “superficial appearance of being right.”
That is why I am dedicating so much time to ASEP. The principle is simple: exercise physiology is best served by exercise physiologists within the context of their own professional organization. It makes little sense today not to divest ourselves of past associations and allow reason to determine the path of the profession of exercise physiology. In fact, it would be rather obvious that the ASEP argument to exercise physiologists should be to urge them to join and contribute to their professionalism. All of us have the capability of working on behalf of exercise physiology, but many choose to deposit this capability in the hands of others.
Not a day goes by that I don’t think about or believe in the ASEP vision. Not a single day no matter how hard or how lonely it gets spreading the message. I have stayed the course, and I always will. That is just me. In similar manner, there are others who have done the same. Although we don’t talk about the ups and downs of ASEP members, they must face significant challenges, too. Hints of this thinking can be found in the literature of the established healthcare professions. Nothing great is ever realized by way of the easy path. There are always those who are waiting in hidden places to steal from others. Some of these people are even friends. There is no end to it.
So there you have it. Criticize me if you will. Do what you must, but the bottom line is simply this: I am not ever going to give up on the idea that the students of exercise physiology deserve the same academic credibility and respect as the students of physical therapy or some other healthcare provider. The principle of equality has no meaning unless it exists for all the students. Success after college belongs to every student, not just to a few.
That is the bottom line. I care for students, and it isn’t just because I am a college teacher. Students work hard for the tuition dollars to attend college. They deserve absolute honesty from their teachers. Anything less, whether intentional or not, is wrong. To put a big question on the table, can you imagine an academic institution where the students are everything and more? Can you imagine what it would take to redefine the purpose of a college degree?
As a culture, the ASEP exercise physiologists have a very specific set of beliefs that are expressed in their code of ethics, board certification, and standards of practice. As a profession, exercise physiology has evolved from a discipline to a healthcare provider. Its science drives its vision and commitment to society’s health and well-being. And yet, there are those who hang behind both in thinking and in deeds. Their intellectual ammunition is wasted as they fail to challenge the legitimacy of the sports medicine authority. We gain from them little, and yet often times they have the audacity to make comments as though what they say matters.
Above all, what is obvious is this: Those who aren’t part of ASEP are more often than not members of the largest sports medicine organization [2] in the United States, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). Here, the truth is the truth. Honestly, do people feel that such a conclusion can’t possibly be stated openly? Of course it can. This is the United States of America. I live in a democracy. That is, a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people. The “people” run the show, not the political message driven by hidden agendas of sports medicine. The time is coming when exercise physiologists must replace today’s archaic mandate with a legitimate view of exercise physiology: all exercise physiologists have a right to the acquisition of their own profession. Why? Because the last time I thought about it, the First Amendment has to do with “freedom of speech.” It is a sad day when the 800 lb “big monkey” simply by its size stops the little person from speaking his or her thoughts.
Anyone should understand that such exhibit of power is inappropriate. This is why college professors must step up to the plate with pride that they should be in control of what is exercise physiology, not sports medicine. Yes, I think it is possible to be free-spirited and provocative. If my intelligent plea to think anew and to act isn’t the right thing to do, then our culture is indeed a gloomy recital of familiar failures of apathy all about us. Think about it. How likely is it that our colleagues will correct the systemic failures of academic exercise physiologists, given that the majority is silent?
The underlying illness of indifference and apathy is either the lack of a backbone or groupthink. It is likely that the shareholders of sports medicine, often an invisible problem for exercise physiology, aren’t happy with the ASEP solution to years of wasted dialogue. This must be true since ASEP interests and perspectives are utterly outside of the objectives of sports medicine. Yet, its style, as defined by the ASEP leaders who have stood the test of indifference, criticism, and groupthink, is an invitation to think and talk about the professionalism of exercise physiology and its right to exist as a profession of healthcare providers.
This is precisely the aim of this article. That is, to question the idea that the needs of sports medicine come before exercise physiology. Although there is essentially no discussion on this point throughout various national meetings, papers, or books, the time is ripe to create new exercise physiology initiatives for student empowerment and ownership of the profession. Specifically, I question the idea that research is more important than the well-being of students. If this point isn’t obvious by now, it should be. This is an article about students, which is a topic altogether new to non-exercise physiologists. Yet, it is clear that if a college graduate cannot locate a credible job after college, the academic degree is rather meaningless. Perhaps, students would benefit more by not getting into debt and going straight to work after high school.
It is hard to imagine the value of a college degree if in fact there are no jobs. I myself would not major in an academic degree that doesn’t have credible jobs to transition into after graduation. However, to be absolutely honest, I taught at the college level for nearly 20 years before I realized there were systemic problems with exercise science “types” of programs. Once I figured out the mess that I was involved with, I set out immediately to correct it. That is exactly what I have been doing for the last 20 years.
After better than a decade of advocating on behalf of ASEP, I understand that I have issues with what is blocking change? At its core is discrimination: academic discrimination. It is rooted in the historical view of physical educators who transitioned themselves as researchers in the 1950s and 1960s. Without much reflection or a sense of what they were doing, the privilege of research allowed for new opportunities. They found themselves as members of the American College of Sports Medicine. The membership privilege by association ultimately ended what would have become exercise physiology as a profession early on rather than later.
Talk about righteous indignation. To explain, righteous means acting in accord with divine or moral law or free from guilt or sin. It may also refer to a morally right or justifiable decision or action or to an action which arises from an outraged sense of justice or morality. Indignation is anger aroused by something unjust, mean, or unworthy [3]. Do you get the point now? It means that as an exercise physiologist I am free from guilt. My efforts to empower exercise physiologists through increased professionalism are without guilt. I am justified by examples of numerous others in terms of their own professions to act in accordance with an unjust involvement on behalf of sports medicine.
This means that ASEP has absolute right to dismantle the past way of thinking for a new version of what is exercise physiology and who is an exercise physiologist. Now, it is important that we do what is right to make the most of what the ASEP leaders put into motion. This is the truth as I know it. The very idea that the ASEP leaders don’t deserve respect is laughable. Again and again they have expended themselves on behalf of students and the profession. I have seen the truth of it. They created an unlikely and visionary new form of exercise physiology, which today has spread around the world.
This raises an interesting point. Given that change is slow indeed, is the issue one of the individual exercise physiologist thinking on his own without the collective body of exercise physiologists? Or, is it that trying to think as an individual is by itself unlikely a fruitful reality? Stated somewhat differently, is it correct to say that the single exercise physiologist thinks versus simply agreeing with what others have already said? It is an apt time to ask this question. What we can know with precision is the direction exercise physiologists need to take. It is as crystal clear as the direction of a 100 m race.
I think this is the backdrop to the law of the land. As the saying goes, “Do unto others before they do to you.” Given that most people have reached that conclusion, let me say I am not happy with it at all. It is the wrong way to think and to act. It has nothing to do with relating to others as human beings. If anything, it is akin to the business bottom line mentality presented in a different format to keep it from being controversial. Again, stated somewhat differently, it is the law of the land. As such, exercise physiologists without a backbone accept it without reflection, insight, or sensitivity to the real issues.
Often times, at least among those I speak with, they think the spineless exercise physiologists are at such odds with reality they should entertain moving on to another line of work altogether. Perhaps, this is the right thinking after all. If they aren’t interested in the students of exercise physiology, it isn’t enough to just teach an exercise physiology class. We must ultimately understand the heart of exercise physiology lies in the fundamental governing of our own household. Unfortunately, the necessity of this point is too often unappreciated by the academic exercise physiologist.
Those who argue on behalf of ACSM are justified by their democratic right to think as they please. But such arguments aren’t just unnecessary to me -- they are by today’s standards superfluous, even insulting. Sports medicine per se doesn’t have an inalienable right to exercise physiology. In short, if democracy translates fully into my right to be an exercise physiologist and not a personal trainer or exercise specialist, then it must also be justified in my right to govern what I do and how I choose to do it. Those who argue the opposite – that is, such as the 800 lb monkey trumps self-governance rights are unreasonable and with no legal foundation of justice.