AMERICAN SOCIETY
OF EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGISTS
Founded, 1997President’s Report
June, 1999
I hope all your summer is progressing as planned. Events are still occurring within and by ASEP that all members need to be aware of. Of course, these events pertain to the annual meeting, as well as to issues of accreditation, certification, licensure, and interaction with ACSM. As usual, I will detail these events below.
1999 Annual Meeting
Approximately 4-5,000 brochures concerning the national meeting have been mailed to exercise physiologists within North America, as well as select individuals overseas. To date, I have only received 3 abstracts. Remember that the deadline is August 3, and all invited speakers are also required to submit an abstract that summarizes their talk. I would also like to encourage members and all those planning on attending the conference to start to complete hotel and meeting registration requirements. Early notice of attendees will enable more complete and appropriate preparation for the meeting from our end at the University of New Mexico.Journal of Exercise Physiologyonline
Manuscript submissions are being maintained at a sufficient rate to support the quarterly nature of the journal. Feedback from members is generally positive regarding the html and PDF versions of the journal. Author submission instructions have been rewritten to suit the additional requirements (mainly for figures) that a PDF version demands.Letters to Other Organizations
The agreement for incorporating state exercise physiology organizations/associations is still being assessed by the Indiana association. Feedback to me by our contact has been very positive, and as soon as this document has been signed, ASEP plans to extend this agreement to all other state level organizations/associations, with an obvious emphasis on the first signing by Indiana. As mentioned last week, this agreement invites state organizations to officially exist and function as a state chapter of ASEP, while still maintaining some degree of autonomy and independence in how they function. These events are exciting developments that frame a more supportive path towards state-specific licensure.Committee Functions
Work continues within each of ASEP’s committees. Clearly, ASEP program accreditation appears to be the key issue that is developing at a fast rate, and Dale Wagner and the remainder of the Accreditation Committee will definitely be proposing their plan to us at the national meeting this year.I still need to discuss many issues with members of the Licensure Committee and Job Market and Public Education Committee.
Scope of Practice For ASEP Certified Exercise Physiologists
Due to the limited feedback about our scope of practice, I will make this topic a discussion issue at the national meeting. From there, the licensure committee will be charged to attack this document with the focus and energy that it needs in preparation for optimal proposals for state-specific licensure.ACSM
Tommy and I have been going around in circles with ACSM over the organization of our teleconference. However, as of last week Tommy was able to communicate with the ACSM office and a date has been tentatively planned for early July. I hope to be able to inform you of the topics, conduct and tone of this meeting in my July report.ACSM National Meeting and ASEP Booth
For those of you who either helped or came by and visited the booth at the ACSM national meeting in Seattle, Tommy and I extend our thanks. Overall, people were extremely positive and appreciative of our efforts and existence. As has been our observation to date, the students and Masters Degree trained exercise physiologists were the most excited about the existence of ASEP, our accomplishments to date, and what ASEP means to a brighter future for exercise physiologists.Letters to Prominent Exercise Physiologists
Throughout the months of May and June I had mailed lengthy letters to prominent research exercise physiologists from within the US, and also from other countries around the world. I also sent these letters to prominent physiologists who research exercise-related topics. I wanted to be bold and ask them specifically what they thought of ASEP, why they have not joined, and extended invitations to join as well as participate in the next annual meeting. To date I have only received reply letters from Elmsworth Buskirk and Britton Chance, and an email reply from Jack Wilmore. All three individuals remained confused about why ASEP was needed in the shadow of ACSM, which I interpreted as a combination of decades of contributing to ACSM and a continued misunderstanding of why and how ASEP differs to ACSM, and why ACSM cannot do what ASEP can for exercise physiology. Ironically, Jack was half positive, and half negative about his understanding of why ASEP exists. Nevertheless, Jack seemed to think that the professionalization of exercise physiology was based on clinical exercise physiology, and not the entire range of what exercise physiologists are educated and trained to do. I will be talking at great lengths with Jose Antonio of the Public Education and Job Market Committee about how ASEP can publicize itself to promote the needs and benefits of ASEP and exercise physiology, and promote an atmosphere that does not force a competition between ASEP and ACSM.I will be placing phone calls to the remainder of the individuals I mailed letters to throughout the summer to force a response. I want to know why so many of the prominent research-based Ph.D. exercise physiologists have yet to join with ASEP, and if their understanding (more like a misunderstanding of why ASEP exists) is the cause of this response. This information will be very valuable for the Public Education and Job Market Committee.
Robert Robergs, Ph.D., FASEP
President - ASEP
