As the new
president of ASEP, I wanted to inform all exercise physiologists (members
and non-members) of the initial directives that I envision ASEP should
follow. Based on the success of the first annual national meeting of ASEP
(see the
conference summary), it is becoming more clear that a growing number
of exercise physiologists within the USA feel strongly about affirming
the need for the professionalization of exercise physiology.
Contained within
the following commentary are ways that current and future members of ASEP
can make a real difference to their profession, which in turn will improve
their professionalism as well as the professional development and employment
opportunities of past, present and future students of exercise physiology.
1. Post meeting
summary to website
For all those who
attended, as well as for those who could not attend, I have provided my
written summary
of the first annual national meeting of ASEP.
2. Continue committee
functions
The current standing
committees need to continue to function, and actually increase their activities.
I need to contact all committee chair-persons and members to personally
request renewed focus and completion of their duties as initially directed
by Tommy Boone.
For all committees, the president of ASEP should
be forwarded all correspondence that pertains to the purposes/accomplishments
of each committee. However, the president of ASEP will function
as an additional committee member and remain subservient to the independent
authority given to the chairperson and the remainder of the committee.
I think that contact
with committee members is best pursued initially through the website, and
more specifically using this document as the instigator of future function.
For example, the committees formed by Tommy Boone, and added to by myself
are:
Accreditation Certification
Governmental and Regulatory
Affairs*
International
Licensure
Pubic Education and
Job Markets
Regional Societies
Research Standards
Women's Issues
*new committee
I realize that we are
only small, and still growing. There is a risk of demanding too much from
too many individuals, but there is simply so much to be done. As we all
agreed in Duluth, there is also a clock that is ticking and our window
of opportunity to make impressions and developments toward professionalization
diminish with each tick. We all need to work together to ensure that what
we develop and propose are highly deliberated, intelligent, and correct
professional solutions to the immediate and future problems that face our
profession.
Each committee should
act to:
a)
Accreditation
Continue to refine
the accreditation proposal presented to the members at the first annual
meeting on October 2-3, 1998. In particular, added work needs to be completed
in listing the desired content of each course, and indicate that academic
programs that apply for ASEP course accreditation can also complete requirements
if they demonstrate that their courses cover the basic content presented,
regardless of the number of courses, or their names.
The most immediate
need is for this committee to forward the material presented to the members
at the first annual meeting to the ASEP webmaster, Tommy Boone, as soon
as possible. The committee should also provide a concise written explanation
of the accredited course program and content with the aim of ensuring the
correct and clear interpretation of the proposed accreditation process.
In addition, it is clear that the proposed course requirements of the ASEP
approved curriculum might also influence courses offered at the masters
and doctoral level. For example, raising the number and difficulty of the
courses offered at the undergraduate level may require programs to create
additional courses in their graduate programs. This committee should also
provide a response to this issue, and if deemed appropriate, provide options
that graduate programs can follow to update their curricula.
An appropriate time
frame for a full proposal to be completed, after a prior thorough review
by ASEP members and also exercise physiologists who are not yet ASEP members,
is the second annual meeting, tentatively scheduled for October 15-16,
1999.
b)
Certification
Continue to refine
ideas of certification that were presented to the members at the first
annual meeting on October 2-3, 1998. This process will involve considerable
interaction with the chairs of the accreditation and standards committees
so that certification will reflect the academic and skills requirements
of accredited exercise physiology programs. These ideas should be written
in a proposal to be circulated to the entire committee as soon as possible.
The reality of exercise
physiology certification is that not all current exercise physiologists
will have completed academic programs that meet ASEP course accreditation
criteria. A decision needs to be made, and a process developed, that can
clarify how current exercise physiologists can achieve certification within
ASEP from what were/are non-accredited programs. For example, should we
develop study material for students who have deficiencies in their exercise
physiology (exercise science) training? Are students from non-exercise
physiology/science programs able to complete classes in exercise physiology/science,
obtain a degree in another field (e.g., biology), yet still qualify for
the right to attempt ASEP certification? How do other professional certification
programs function in these regards?
An appropriate time
frame for a full proposal to be completed, after thorough review by ASEP
members is the second annual meeting, tentatively scheduled for October
15-16, 1999.
c)
International
Issues
This committee,
now chaired by the president of ASEP, needs to develop a written statement
of the current status of the professionalization of exercise physiology
throughout the world. The material presented at this years annual meeting
of ASEP on October 2-3, 1998 should be further revised, updated with additional
organizations within the USA and other countries, and also include other
professional organizations that currently are/might include implementation
of exercise testing and prescription into their professional duties.
A realistic time
frame for this report is December, 1998.
d)
Licensure
Tommy Boone has
clearly expressed the needs and concerns of exercise physiologists regarding
the issue of licensure. In summary, it is premature to currently progress
towards licensure without course accreditation, numerous ASEP approved
exercise physiology courses within the USA, and the broader acceptance
of ASEP by more exercise physiologists. Once these developments have occurred,
a larger and more unified framework that will produce adequate descriptions
of the duties of exercise physiologists can be applied to all the 51 states
of the USA, and be more assured of success.
Given the aforementioned
constraints, this committee needs to make progress on developing links
with appropriate connections that will benefit future efforts towards licensure.
To assist this commitee in these regards, I have formed a new committee,
the Governmental and Regulatory Affairs Committee, who can
focus specifically on the processes needed to promote ASEP to state legislators.
Consequently, the licensure committee should investigate the licensure
format of other organizations (e.g., nutrition, physical therapy, occupational
therapy, and so forth) and establish the route ASEP should take. In the
mean time, the Committee should commence lobbying and spread this process
to the facilitators of each region for adoption by their states.
The licensure
committee needs to work on a document that can be provided to ASEP
members to then pass along to their state legislators. This document must
be developed as soon as possible, and coincide with the weeks after the
elections of November 1998.
e)
Governmental
and Regulatory Affairs
As discussed above,
the Governmental and Regulatory Affairs committee needs to develop strategies
that ASEP members can use to lobby their state legislatures. As we can
not provide a formal proposal that can be enacted on by state law in the
immediate future, what we can do is lobby to express that exercise-based
functions in the medical arena should be left to exercise physiologists,
and not be included in the functions of already accepted allied health
and clinical services such as physical therapy, occupational therapy, nursing,
pulmonary therapists, etc. Such preparation for future licensure is terribly
important, and needs to start immediately.
f)
Public
Education/Job Market
Events during the
first annual meeting on October 2-3, 1998 indicated that exercise physiologists
desperately need to improve their presence and image among the public.
In addition, we as exercise physiologists have minimal knowledge of where
we are employed after either undergraduate, masters or doctoral training.
This committee needs
to work on three important projects:
Research employment
success for the different levels of student preparation for exercise physiologists
within the USA by identifying as many individuals as possible that graduate
from each academic level, and find out what they are currently doing, how
much they are earning, what is their professional satisfication, etc. This
data can be broken down by sex, ethnicity, state, age, etc.
Add to the aforementioned
research by determining what the qualifications are of individuals who
currently work in exercise physiology-related positions (eg. personal trainers,
fitness facility managers, cardiac rehabilitation centers, etc.).
Develop a list of strategies
that members of ASEP can pursue to improve the public recognition and understanding
of exercise physiologists. Such strategies could include a form document
to be sent to all media centers (television, radio, etc.) informing them
of how we as exercise physiologists are the people to communicate with
for information on most topics that primarily concern exercise.
The survey-based research
projects need to be immediately developed and implemented so that the data
can be used to better direct our efforts to improve public education and
employment opportunities for all exercise physiologists. This committee
could also seek assistance from student representatives of ASEP located
in different universities/colleges throughout the USA. Data from
these projects should also be developed into a presentation to be made
at the 1999 meeting on the status of the current employment of exercise
physiologists (BSc, Msc, PhD), and also be prepared for publication.
g)
Regional
Societies
In addition to the
directions originally provided by Tommy Boone, the events of the first
annual meeting on October 2-3, 1998 revealed additional items that this
committee must address.
It seems clear to
many members of ASEP that students are to be a focus for efforts to increase
membership. This makes sense given the fundamental efforts of ASEP to improve
employment conditions for non-PhD exercise physiologists. One of the main
methods that was raised to facilitate this objective is the formation of
student representatives from as many universities as possible. For example,
Sharon
Griffin has volunteered to be the student representative at the
University of New Mexico, in the Pacific and Mountain States Region. It
seems appropriate for each university member to recruit a student representative
for their university, and have this student be responsible for recruiting
new student members.
This committee needs
to immediately develop methods to facilitate increased student membership,
promote an increased recognition of ASEP in each region, and promote as
much of ASEP's agenda to the universities of each region. Perhaps a good
starting point is for each region facilitator to complete a directory of
graduate and undergraduate programs in exercise science/physiology. Tommy
has already started this process with the ASEP Directory of Graduate
Programs. This directory should contain as much information as
possible about the course offerings of each program, and eventually be
available for inclusion within the ASEP website. Furthermore, this information
would be invaluable for the accreditation and certification committees,
and should be provided to them as soon as possible.
A realistic agenda
for these functions would be to have a first draft of the directory (encompassing
all regions) completed by February 1998. Continued work on the directory
and student membership recruiting should result in a presentation to be
made at the 1999 meeting on the status of academic programs and their suitability
in adopting the proposed accreditation guidelines.
h)
Research
Tommy has provided
a lengthy list of issues that this committee is to pursue. I also want
to add additional items that I believe fall under this committee's jurisdiction.
(1)
ASEP
Procedure Recommendations
Oversee the writing
of several organization recommendations on procedures used in exercise
physiology. I propose that these recommendations be termed, "Procedure
Recommendations" (PRs) and function to clearly identify the correct approach
to take when conducting specific measurements in exercise physiology. These
PRs, if written by adequately qualified individuals and contain correct
information, will enable for increased consistency in data collection during
specific conditions, and for individuals of specific populations. In addition,
correct methods in measurement will allow for more accurate data and their
correct interpretation within exercise physiology. The PRs differ to a
society position stand. Position stands can still be developed by ASEP
if they are required. The distinction I see between a PR and a position
stand is that the first concerns how to measure certain variables common
to exercise physiology. The latter concerns ASEP's interpretation of a
body of knowledge in a topic that is of importance to how/why exercise
is used/should be used by others (the public, the fitness industry, in
medical practice, in rehabilitation, etc.).
I propose
that
we immediately commence the writing of the following PRs:
How to measure measure
VO2max, and verify that it was attained.
How to estimate VO2max
from submaximal exercise testing and interpret the findings.
How to most accurately
estimate body composition in laboratory and field settings.
How to measure muscular
strength and neuromuscular function.
How to determine adequate
sample size prior to conducting research.
I think that the first
PR should be how to measure VO2max. The measure of VO2max is one of the
measurements that defines exercise physiology. However, researchers conduct
exercise protocols differently, use varied criteria for establishing the
attainment of VO2max, and some researchers prefer to use the term VO2peak
rather than VO2max. Given the recent controversy on how we, as exercise
physiologists, measure and interpret VO2max (see
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
27(9):1292-1301, 1995, 20(4):319-330, 1988, 29(5):571-590 and 591-603,
1997, and 30(9):1381-1398, 1998), I think we need to provide guidance to
exercise physiologists on how to best perform exercise tests to increase
the validity of the measurement. I have already started work on this PR,
and will request additional exercise physiologists, known for their writing
on this topic, to assist me. In addition, Dr. Vivian Heyward has agreed
to write the PR on body composition, and Lee Brown, MSc has agreed to work
on the PR concerning muscular strength testing.
I encourage the research
committee to organize who should write the other PRs, and develop an agenda
for the writing of any other they perceive that are needed. PRs should
be reviewed by the research committee, in combination with external reviewers
who may or may not be ASEP members. We should be able to have each of the
three currently organized PRs (VO2max, body composition, muscular strength)
ready for the 1999 meeting, and be published in JEPonline
(October 1999 or January 2000 issue).
(2) ASEP Position
Statements
As indicated above,
position statements from ASEP represent a commentary on a particular topic
pertinent to exercise physiology. The commentary presents a concise review
of both/all sides of a scientific or professional dilemma, and provides
an interpretation. Position statements will function to delineate appropriate
interpretations of what could be a confusing compilation of contradictory
evidence, or make a clear statement on an issue that is of importance to
exercise physiology.
The first position
stand I see to be needed is one of the teaching of metabolic acidosis,
lactate production, and lactic acid. It seems that exercise physiologists
remain inconsistent in how we teach the association between metabolic acidosis
and lactate production, and on the biochemical causes of skeletal muscle
and blood acidosis. I would be a suitable person to write such a statement,
but I am committed to too many other duties at the moment. The research
committee should recruit a suitably trained exercise physiologist and biochemist
for the preparation of this statement. As with the procedure recommendations,
position statements should be reviewed by the committee as well as additional
exercise physiologists and biochemists with a proven research record in
the area of skeletal muscle glycolysis.
i) Standards
There is little to
add to Tommy Boone's eloquent expression of why exercise physiologists
need to be concerned with the standards of how we are trained and conduct
ourselves professionally. Part of the ridicule exercise physiologists have
tolerated in the past has been because we haven't understood that how we
are seen by others is a reflection of how we function. Raising the academic
standards of our undergraduate and graduate degrees is a positive step
in the right direction, but it is not enough if we as professionals of
exercise physiology do not also increase our professional credibility in
all that we do each day. This is the major challenge we all face as exercise
physiologists.
j)
Women's
Issues
The committee for
women in exercise physiology has a host of important functions: (1) to
understand why women have a minor role of exercise physiology at the PhD
level; (2) to determine if this occurrence is due to accepted societal
constraints; (3) sex discrimination in our undergraduate and graduate programs;
and (4) the result of a lack of assertiveness by our female students of
exercise physiology. Based on these findings, this committee should develop
strategies for correcting this bias.
3. Formal request
for interaction with other organizations related to exercise physiology
The growth of ASEP
needs to be coupled with the positive outreach to other related organizations
within the USA, and from other countries. There is currently evidence of
discontent towards ASEP from exercise physiologists with greater loyalties
to the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). This is unfortunate,
as this discontent detracts from both ASEP and ACSM functions. Furthermore,
such discontent must be prevented from developing within other organizations.
ASEP needs to explain
its presence to other organizations very clearly. Similarly, other organizations
need to be able to express their opinions in an open and professional atmosphere.
We at ASEP do not believe we are interfering with the missions of any other
organization. In fact, our presence and growth can only improve the function
of exercise physiologists, which in turn can only improve the objectives
of ACSM and other exercise-related organizations.
4. Formal request
for interaction with nutrition, allied health and medical organizations
regarding exercise physiologists' roles in clinical practice (diagnosis
of disease, prevention and rehabilitation from disease).
I will draft letters
very soon to send to all organizations with an interest in exercise physiology.
Obviously, the focal concern among exercise physiologists is how to be
accepted and promoted by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM).
I have been somewhat outspoken in my beliefs that, based on the missions
of ACSM, ASEP should be welcomed by this organization. I will continue
to pursue sincere and professional interaction with ACSM, as well as all
other organizations.
5. Organization
of the 1999 Annual Meeting.
Plans are already
underway for the 1999 national annual meeting to be held at the University
of New Mexico in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The tentative date for this meeting
is October 15-16, 1999. These dates coincide with the first and second
(last) weekend of the Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta, and the
week following the fiesta, respectively. The Albuquerque International
Balloon Fiesta is the world's largest hot air balloon event, and the most
photographed event in the world!!).
Hotel accommodations
will be tight and advanced booking will definitely be necessary for hotels
close to the University of New Mexico. I think the potential of coinciding
these events has the advantage of providing an added attraction to the
trip to Albuquerque. Balloon fiesta events occur at sunrise, and after
dark, so there is no real conflict with the conference schedule other than
transportation and accommodation, as previously explained.
Several talks are
already organized for this meeting. To keep all members and non-members
appraised of the itinerary, an incomplete schedule will be posted to the
website and regularly updated with new inclusions whenever they are confirmed.
Several members have
requested a deadline for research abstracts for this meeting that is as
late as possible. This request is reasonable, as it will increase the likelihood
for more submitted abstracts and the ability for more students to have
data collected and analyzed for submission to the meeting. The student
submissions are important, as there will be a student section (or more
than 1) where they (undergraduates, Masters, and PhDs) will be given the
opportunity to gain experience in formal scientific presentations. However,
the deadline must consider the time needed to peer review the abstracts
and reply in sufficient time to allow presenters to make advanced (reduced
price) travel arrangements. At this stage, I anticipate a deadline of August
1, 1999. This date should allow data collected in the summer sessions to
be at least partially analyzed and suitable for abstract writing.
Final Comments
The aforementioned
issues are by no means the limit to how ASEP needs to function during the
next 12 months. However, they are an organized start to the huge task ahead
of professionalizing exercise physiology. Tommy Boone has provided us with
the opportunity to unite as a society of exercise physiologists, functioning
for exercise physiologists, and with the overall conviction that this is
also what is needed to raise the application and transfer of exercise knowledge
to the consumer.
As exercise physiologists
we should be proud of our training, and satisfied with our importance to
the development of current medical practice that has seen the increased
incorporation of exercise into diagnostic and rehabilitative functions.
Similarly, the increasing societal acceptance of the need for increased
exercise and daily physical activity are in large part due to the past
research and professional functions of exercise physiologists. As exercise
physiologists, we should be proud of what we have done, and of what we
are capable of doing. We deserve to be recognized for our command of the
knowledge of how exercise influences human physiology, and be provided
with the opportunity to apply this knowledge in a diverse arena of job
opportunities. In addition, we deserve the peace of mind that comes with
increased job security, which in turn has the potential to result from
course accreditation, certification, and perhaps even licensure for those
exercise physiologists seeking employment in clinical settings.
These goals are not
unreasonable, and can be accomplished if we really want them.
Robert A. Robergs,
PhD
ASEP President
Exercise Physiologists
& Biochemist
Director: The Center
For Exercise & Applied Human Physiology
The University of
New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM
87131-1251
505-277-1196
FAX (505)277-9742
email: rrobergs@unm.edu
ASEP
Table of Contents