Copyright ©1997-2004American Society of Exercise Physiologists. All Rights Reserved.


                   Vol. 8 No. 7  July  2004

 Editors: Dr. Lonnie Lowery and Dr. Tommy Boone
What's New:

Articles   Departments
Select Strategies for Increasing Awareness of ASEP
Dr. Lonnie Lowery
An Introduction to the Mind of the ASEP Member 
Dr. Tommy Boone
Professionalism of Exercise Physiology: A Student’s Perspective Jason Brabec, MA, EPC
The Problem of Ambition Over Professionalism
Dr. Tommy Boone
Job Advertisement - l
Westfield Group / Washington Adventist Hospital. 
The ASEP Editors 
Check out the HPN Links!
Ask the Professor 
 (coming soon!)
ASEP Health News You Can Use 
Catch-up on exercise and wellness news!
(coming soon!)

Editorial: Select Strategies for Increasing Awareness of ASEP
Lonnie M. Lowery, MA, MS, PhD 
ASEP National Secretary, 
Co-editor ASEP Newsletter, 
President, Nutrition, Exercise & Wellness Associates, LLC 
Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44222 

A primary drive of recent Board of Directors (BOD) meetings has been improved promulgation (i.e. marketing) of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists. Stimulated by more than self-interest (ASEP growth for its own sake), the marketing of ASEP goes beyond the singular goal of business marketing that hopes to increase its "bottom line". The expansive new ASEP marketing plan is meant to save a profession from extinction. Several approaches have been included in the recently-formalized business plan, each with specific measurable objectives. Following are just two... 

Expanded use of the ASEP E-News (email version of the longstanding web Newsletter) will be used to invite a wide variety of potentially interested students and professionals into ASEP. This invitation will include 10 critical reasons to join as well as benefits for those who make the commitment to ASEP and the Profession. Exercise science graduates looking to practice in the field need to know WHY they should join ASEP and become true exercise physiologists (EPCs). 

Part of this marketing initiative can eventually focus on faculty "gatekeepers" as well... A "faculty education" campaign on was also seriously considered at the recent National Meeting. Awareness among exercise-related faculty that recent graduates are entering a nebulous, unlicensed and multi-certification-polluted "profession", with extremely poor earning potential relative to other health professions, (Wattles, M. ASEP Annual National Meeting, April 1-3, 2004) is a key goal for this campaign. Is an exercise science degree currently worth its LARGE monetary / time investment when EP licensure is nearly non-existent among states? Is it worth it when other, established legalized professions are simply certifying themselves in our hard-earned, 4-6 year education/ skill set? 

Indiana recently considered legislation that would move EP opportunities to PTs. And despite a position paper that diet itself is ineffective for weight control, RDs have created weight management certificates that include physical activity. And why shouldn't these professions want to branch out from their traditional roots and get a piece of the growing wellness/ prevention/ treatment markets? They are simply protecting and expanding their charters. We must do the same to create a climate of proper referral to the best trained professional for each specific client's/patient's need. 

But back to the faculty awareness initiative. Without full disclosure to incoming students of the legally rare, underpaid and threatened exercise physiology profession, doesn't it become an ethical dilemma then, for universities to accept tens of thousands of dollars in tuition payments (and related Departmental benefits)? This question can be asked because ultimately, the unlicense-able exercise degree conferred is often unworthy of supporting even a lower-middle class lifestyle. Without ASEP, advisor referral to other Programs (PT, RD, and various associate degree programs) may well become the only ethical advice for any incoming student wishing to make a living in exercise, commensurate with his or her education/ time/ money investment. 

Although the BOD and many ASEP members at the faculty-level are aware that some students pursue knowledge for its own sake, as common to the humanities (indeed noble), it is also recognized that many (most?) students entering a health-related profession expect to earn a better living by actually utilizing their chosen profession. Exercise Science faculty advisors who eventually recognize this potential conflict of interest in which they participate should gain interest in ASEP. Hence the proposed "faculty education" initiative. That is, ASEP's informational flyers, meetings, structure, accreditation, and legal initiatives will create legal value and subsequent earning potential to an exercise physiology degree - and faculty can know they are justified in recruiting hopeful new students into their programs. Presently, however, accepting money/ enrollment and unwittingly encouraging an over-positive career outlook in an unrecognized "profession" (that is rapidly being annexed by other licensed health professions) seems unethical. 

The faculty education initiative, in whatever form it takes, should open many eyes.  The resulting "trickle-down effect", from fully-aware faculty "gatekeepers" to their students, of the REAL job market and its legalities should increase ASEP membership as this ethical/ legal awareness grows. It'll be an uphill battle; "fighters" are welcome. 

In summary, you can see that much discussion has gone into the new and sweeping marketing initiatives of ASEP. Their results - which will be measured in various ways - should help everyone. 

Editorial: An Introduction to the Mind of the ASEP Member
Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, MA, FASEP, EPC 
Professor and Chair 
Department of Exercise Physiology 
The College of St. Scholastica 
Duluth, MN 55811 
“ASEP is not work; it is a labor of love.” – William T. Boone
Recently, I had the opportunity to speak about the American Society of Exercise Physiologists (ASEP).  I acknowledged the members for the assistance and support in the professional development of exercise physiology.  Without them, the organization would not exist.  Their unselfish patience has helped transform exercise physiology from a discipline to an emerging healthcare profession.  The ASEP leadership owes a special thank-you to every member, and all exercise physiologists are indebted to the members for their extraordinary support and encouragement. 

Passion and belief in exercise physiology is their approach to independence as healthcare professionals [1].  Neither recognition as a personal trainer nor a fitness instructor equals the professional title of an exercise physiologist.  This doesn’t mean they aren’t educated to leverage important accomplishments at a personal level, but that their vision is much bigger.  All are not seasoned professionals.  Some are students.  Others are a mix with much to learn.  Their reasons for joining ASEP are varied.  Most want the respect that others have.  They are tired of being shortchanged by past thinking.  Those who join ASEP know that it is the future of exercise physiology [2]. 

Most ASEP members see the opportunity that a professional organization enables.  They understand the strong correlation between one’s participation in an organization and the positive changes on behalf of all members.  It is less about personal gain and more about investing in the profession, collective careers, and professional practices.  Most of us will benefit from the leadership of the ASEP members.  They are selling their ideas to employees and others when they talk positive about ASEP and exercise physiology.  By working together and building personal and professional relationships, members are in position to help each other take advantage of the different opportunities.  Together, they create they learn to control their own destiny [3]. 

When members think success, not failure, when members believe in themselves and are willing to work and deal with difficult moments, and when their intellectual bedrock id founded in ethical thinking [4], you can believe they are different than the rest.  They are professionals who see opportunities others dream about.  Nearly all of the members are looking to be part of the new professional niche not just to make it financially, rather to nurture the profession.  This shouldn’t be surprising when you consider that other successful healthcare professionals have done the same.  My point is obvious:  we cannot get to the next level of transition and growth unless we come together to dream and work towards a common vision [5]. 

Reflecting for a moment, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that promoting ASEP without the help of the academic community isn’t easy [6].  And, yet I learned long time ago that courage, hard work, and tenacity are all winning tickets.  No one has be rich, big, smart, or even good looking to rise to the top.  All a person needs is inner strength.  This is especially true when struggling to overcome groupthink [7].  Even today I’m still that strong believer of tenacity, regardless of 9/11 or colleagues who constantly surprise you with their apathy.  Here, ASEP members are not insensitive to the sports medicine myth [8] but, in turn, they lead, mentor, and encourage others to join ASEP.  Why?  Unlike their sports medicine colleagues, who focus too much on themselves and not their students, they are interested in helping [all] exercise physiologists. 

They have heard all the comments about ASEP, such as:  “You will never be recognized in ASEP.”  “The organization can’t make it.”  Or, “It is better to play it safe and join sports medicine.”  Most ASEP members will tell you a lot more about negative comments.  But, needless to say, they are still members of ASEP.  Hence, all of a sudden, a person gets the point.  They are not members of ASEP to prove anything except that they have the right to belong to their own professional organization.  Their motivation is simple.  It is the same as the physical therapist who belongs to the national physical therapy association or the nurse who belongs to a nursing organization.  Ignoring ASEP doesn’t make sense to exercise physiologists.  Keep in mind it may make sense to sports medicine professionals. 

Being true to one’s beliefs, which is the case with ASEP members, comes with a price.  There are criticisms and mis-understandings.  However, the process of growth dictates that both are acceptable outcomes.  Remember that it is a bad idea to try to be who you are in another person’s backyard.  The bottom line is simply this:  Sports medicine is not exercise physiology.  And, exercise physiology career opportunities cannot be realized under the sports medicine umbrella.  As an evolving profession, we must stand on our own two feet.  This is the message of the ASEP members.  They, too, know that it is unfortunate thinking to try and pull your self up by relying on the help of non-exercise physiologists.  The game’s over or, at least, it should be.  It is highly presumptive to think we can win or even predict our future hanging on to the outdated thinking of yesterday [9] 

ASEP members understand completely that controlling their own destiny is not possible when you are a member of a non-exercise physiology organization.  To illustrate my point, where is the feeling of power?  Where is the control over how exercise physiologists think?  Why are members of the sports medicine organization making the decisions for exercise physiologists?  Are exercise physiologists defined by the sports medicine code of ethics or their own?  How do exercise physiologists declare a “standards” of practice within the context of sports medicine?  Who disciplines the exercise physiologist?  Which certification is important to the exercise physiologist? It is hard not to overemphasize the differences between sports medicine and exercise physiology. 

“Do you know how to be an exercise physiologists?  You think it, believe it, and live it.”  -- William T. Boone
Speaking of living it, everything begins with tenacity.  ASEP members demonstrate it every year by paying their dues.  Year after year they stay the course.  Regardless of the lack of the usual organizational benefits, the members overcome obvious shortcomings by their faith in the leadership and their integrity to always do what is right for [all] exercise physiologists.  Nearly all of the members have come to understand that ASEP is here to stay.  Judgments about what is ASEP and why should it exist are no longer important to them.  There is a rather clear understanding why they belong to ASEP, regardless of their membership with other organizations.  This, it seems to me, is clearly a mark of true insight, courage, and audacity that challenges the weak of heart.  That is, those who need the infectious embracement of the so-called established professionals are hard pressed to grasp the moment.  They just don’t get it. 

Non-ASEP exercise physiologists would do well to think out of the box [10].  For example, why continue spending your efforts that only build sports medicine and not exercise physiology?  How does it possibly help your students, if you are a college teacher?  Those who unemployed or unemployable need your help.  Their fear of never making it may be driving them from exercise physiology.  In other words, in a matter of a year or several years, they will be a nurse or a physical therapist.  Imagine the enormous energy and enthusiasm lost to an entirely different profession?  It is unacceptable since it has the propensity to destroy the spirit of many students.  Why not join with ASEP members and overcome both academic and financial adversity?  It is an understatement to say that it is both the logical and ethical thing to do. 

In summary, it is clear that the ASEP members have considerable courage.  To be a member of ASEP is to take a risk.  And, yet it is the magic of exercise physiology because it is the road to success.  Think as a physical therapist would.  Think as a nurse would.  They think as professionals.  This is how ASEP members think.  They are true professionals.  Exercise physiologists who do not belong to ASEP should for these reasons.  Believe in yourself as the ASEP members do.  Join ASEP, think success, and communicate your positive beliefs to others. 

“Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.”  -- Joshua 1:9 

1. Boone, T. (2003). Overcoming Institutional Inertia with Leadership. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 6:2:February [Online].
2. Boone, T. (2003). The Entrepreneurship of Exercise Physiology. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 6:3:March [Online].
3. Boone, T. (2000). The Idea of Power and Professionalism. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 3:5:May [Online].
4. Boone, T. (2003). Ethical Thinking:  What Is It and Why Does It Matter? Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 6:6:June [Online].
5. American Society of Exercise Physiologists. (2004). The ASEP Vision. [Online].
6. Boone, T. (2004).  Indifference to Professional Standards is Irresponsible Behavior. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 7:2:February [Online].
7. Boone, T. (2004).  The Professional Practice of Exercise Physiology and Ethical Thinking. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 7:2:February [Online].
8. Boone, T. (2001).  The Sports Medicine Myth. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 4:7:July [Online].
9. Boone, T. (2004).  A Portrait of the ASEP Organization as a Positive Force for Change and Professional Accountability. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 7:4:April [Online].
10. Boone, T. (2002).  Exercise Physiology of the Future: Thinking Out of the Box. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 5:11:November [Online].

Professionalism of Exercise Physiology: A Student’s Perspective
Jason Brabec, MA, EPC 
Department of Exercise Physiology 
The College of St. Scholastica 
Duluth, MN 55811 

In looking at the profession of Exercise Physiology, what does it hold in the future?  I would like to answer this question with:  autonomy, respect, higher salaries, licensure, and professionalism.  As of now, though, I cannot use these responses together.  One might find bits and pieces of autonomy here or respect there, but it is rare to find the proper respect and treatment as that of nurses or other health care professions.  In response to gaining the desired treatment, ASEP has been formed by Exercise Physiologists for Exercise Physiologists.  This society has given EPs hope and the will to further our profession, but how do we go about it?  What steps must occur to change the public’s conception of an EP from a fitness leader to a health care provider? 

To become a strong, united society, we must first unite.  With EPs numbering in the thousands, it was somewhat disappointing to see only 75 members attend the ASEP National Conference, while the number of potential EPs who could have attended the meeting is very high indeed.  The small number does not reflect the drive and enthusiasm that I witnessed.  It was exciting and refreshing to see other EPs in attendance express their views and perspectives.  There was a “grass-roots” feeling in the air.  As we continue to grow with age as a Society of Exercise Physiologists, we will learn the ropes of professionalism and we will succeed.  But where do we begin eliciting this growth? 

We must begin at the foundation of our profession, which is the academic curriculum at the undergraduate level.  Through accreditation steps, colleges and universities can begin to shape their exercise science and physical education degrees (not to mention about 30 other names) to ones that represent Exercise Physiology.  Although these changes do not happen immediately, some of these institutions have invested in the hopes of bringing an accredited EP program onto their campuses.  In doing so, every graduate is ensured the same basic core classes as another graduate from other programs.   EPs will develop similar academic backgrounds, no matter where they earned a degree.  Nurses and PTs have the same core body of knowledge for their individual programs of study, why cannot we have the same.  This then leads us to the question of who can call themselves an EP. 

At this time, many people call themselves an Exercise Physiologist.  The truth is that many of these people have adopted the title through earning degrees in exercise science or kinesiology.  This practice is unfair to the EP who actually earned a bachelor’s degree in exercise physiology, or took the time to pursue a master’s or doctorate degree.  The EPC certification was designed for this reason.  It establishes that an EP candidate has completed at least five out of nine core classes to qualify for the certification.  It does not matter if you are a medical doctor or a PT, if you have not completed this requirement, you cannot sit for the exam.  I feel that it is important to continue this practice and uphold the dignity if ASEP certification. 

We cannot not sit for a nurses’ certification or a PT’s licensure test, so why should they be able to sit for our professional title?  This is the problem that nearly wiped out Exercise Physiology.  ACSM was not founded for EPs but for many other professions.  If we feel that we owe them anything, it is the insight to stay loyal to our profession.  I commend the board of ASEP for upholding these qualities.  Even though a candidate must meet these requirements, he/she must still demonstrate the ability to perform hands on basics relating to several EP areas.  The certification does not stop there, though.  The candidate must also demonstrate knowledge in every area of EP in a written exam, scoring a seventy or above to pass.  When these requirements are fulfilled, then one has the right to call him- or herself a board certified Exercise Physiologist. 

The next step is to gain the respect of the medical world and the public.  We must be able to demonstrate that we have the ability and knowledge to help people make a difference.  Why should a nurse be trained to monitor cardiac patients when an EP is already qualified for the position.  Part of the reason is that we are still a young, developing profession.  We need to grow by promoting ourselves and our profession.  In time, people will get to know what an EP is about (including academic and professional qualifications), just as PTs are recognized.  With the respect of the health field and the public, we can begin to stretch out and find new and different ways to make contributions.  Autonomy will then follow after, allowing us the freedom to use our knowledge and skills without supervision of others.  The day that all EPs are able to perform on their own is still in the future, although there are many in the field that possess self-practice. 

When others are able to see the need for Exercise Physiologists, demand for us will grow.  This will be represented in the increase of salaries.  Many EPs become discouraged when they hear that salaries can range in the mid-twenties, similar to OT and PT aides who possess only high school diplomas.  EPs must become recognized as a profession, instead of letting others bully us around.  Instead of supporting other associations that do nothing for our profession, ASEP and the profession of EP must be supported (especially by students).  We need to legitimize our profession within the health care systems. 

Another way to help further our profession is to pursue licensure at the state level and eventually at the national level.  Licensure would further recognize what exactly our scope of practice entails, and would shed light on our code of ethics.  It is becoming necessary for our profession to survive.  Licensure would stop other professions from encroaching on our scope of practice, and would ensure the need for an increase in career opportunities.  Increasing the demand would also increase the salaries.  Regulation of our profession would provide the public with the uniform academic preparation, standards of care, and expected methods of assessments and treatments.  With autonomy we would demonstrate that we are accountable for the standards of care provided to every individual that seeks professional guidance, instruction, and support to improve their health and fitness [1]. 

Professionalism of exercise physiology requires communication and commitment.  We need leadership through ASEP members with a desire to keep the professional development of exercise physiology moving forwards.  They must be hard-working and possess the ability to work together.  We must have the sense to shed the familiar and comfortable relationship with sports medicine for a more collective, self-centered conviction that inspires us to become the managers of the future within Exercise Physiology [2].  The image of Exercise Physiology must also change if we are to reaffirm credibility and leadership in the health, fitness, athletics, and rehabilitation areas.  Although we have reached the threshold of trusting others around us, I hope in the future that we can continue trusting EPs through ASEP. 

1. Wattles, M.  (2004), The Licensing of Exercise Physiologists.  2004 ASEP National Meeting, Indianapolis, IN. 
2. Boone, T. (2001). Professional Development of Exercise Physiology.  Edwin Mellen Press. 


The Problem of Ambition Over Professionalism
Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, MA, FASEP, EPC 
Professor and Chair 
Department of Exercise Physiology 
The College of St. Scholastica 
Duluth, MN 55811 
“The nonprofessionals have already surrounded us.”-- Sarah Short
From my earliest interest in exercise physiology, my college professors were adamant about the importance of research.  Designing studies, collecting data, and publishing manuscripts were considered as [the] door to personal and professional acceptance.   Being accepted was always viewed as a goal, especially since so few exercise physiologists were recognized outside of physical education.  Recognition has always been important.  Researchers are assumed to be ethical, and exercise physiologists need to be recognized as professionals.  So, for decades, exercise physiologists with access to laboratory equipment threw themselves into all kinds of research projects.  Graduates students were also required to do research in the form of a thesis or dissertation. 

Although my involvement with exercise physiology began in the early 1970s, it was not until the mid-1980s that professors realized the value of students’ involvement in sports medicine conferences.  The presence of students substantially increased the size of the conferences.  Unfortunately, the idea that research per se is sufficient to professionalize a field is poorly understood.  Exercise physiology, like any other field that is evolving from a discipline to a profession, must justify itself as a profession just as other professions have done.  Research therefore cannot take precedence over other important criteria for  professional development.  Similarly, for the benefit of all exercise physiologists, the “thirst for profit” cannot be allowed to interfere with the practice of exercise physiology. 

To understand the problem of “ambition over professionalism” requires a code of ethics.  The first code written specifically for exercise physiologists surfaced with the founding of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists in 1997 [1].  The objective of the code is to help exercise physiologists render service uninfluenced by motives of profit or ambition.  Thus the practice of exercise physiology should be limited to income from one’s principal employment, not from consulting fees determined by the bottom line of businessmen.  Notwithstanding the importance of money, knavery and profiteering cannot be a rational basis for the professional development of exercise physiologists as healthcare professionals.  Still, there is a high regard placed on working with companies that produce drugs and/or supplements.  In this country and throughout the world, coaches, trainers, sports nutritionist, and exercise physiologists, as well as athletes, have come to think that the use of ergogenic aids is acceptable.  This is a big problem for sports, society, and the evolving profession of exercise physiology. 

Those who believe in the use of drugs and/or supplements to enhance physical activity seem to think that no one has the right to disagree with them [2].  While it may not be popular today for exercise physiologists to disagree with colleagues who believe that the use of drugs and supplements is not cheating [3], it is absolutely imperative that the right to disagree is honored and expected from members of the profession.  This is as yet a lofty pronouncement that seems to be of little value to those who have a huge interest in “sports nutrition” and, in particular, drugs and supplements.  For decades now exercise physiologists, who may also refer themselves as sports nutritionists (because s/he is interested in nutrition or its role in sports), have enjoyed the distinction.  However, it should be recognized that there are virtually no academic degrees in sports nutrition.  The title is therefore assumed by anyone with an invested interest, which is not a good thing since it is not consistent with other professions. 

With the privileged position of title, there is the responsibility of individuals to assure no harm with their contact with others.  They are also expected to act in accordance with an established code to ensure their competence and trustworthiness.  However, since they do not have a code of ethics, there is no reason to expect sports nutritionists to faithfully discharge their responsibilities.  Without ethical codes, the idea of subsidizing one’s professional pay with fees, facilities, and equipment is not questioned as profiteering (and yet that is exactly what it may be).  Failure in understanding this distinction is not in the best interest of exercise physiologists or athletes.  That’s the whole point.  Professionals must have the best interest of the patients, clients, and colleagues at heart.  Their work cannot be about maximizing income or product sales for commercial vendors.  This thinking however is directly in contrast with the competing interests of the marketing and advertising by performance-enhancing companies.  This is also a problem for exercise physiologists who support the deception in products. 

In a professional environment, members are expected to be professional and credible.  This may not be the case with distributing drugs, supplements, and funds for research.  It is quite different.  Grants funded by supplement companies are likely to carry the interest of the CEO.  For the most part, researchers who obtain grant money from tradition sources are interested in determining the facts.  Researchers who are interested in keeping their jobs with drug and supplement companies have been found on occasion to be less concerned about the facts, particularly should the facts fail to promote the company’s products.   The notion of altruistic concerns of supplement companies is inconsistent with the bottom line and the entrepreneurial trend of attractive financial opportunities.  It figures that this kind activity, where respected academics are hired by supplement companies to write articles and give lectures about new products, has gone unquestioned far too long by exercise physiologists. 

If physicians shouldn’t refer patients to a facility in which they have ownership interest, shouldn’t exercise physiologists do the same?  That is, if they have an interest in using supplements, it doesn’t mean that they should automatically believe that it is right or appropriate for others.  If they have an interest in marketing supplements for better physical performance, it doesn’t mean that the same thinking is suited for others.  The task of thinking different will be difficult and the likelihood of a solution any time soon is far from clear.  But, the first step with change begins with the courage to try.  The sooner exercise physiologists face up to the problems inherit with the present system, the easier it will be for the public to embrace exercise physiology as a healthcare profession founded on ethical principles. 

In common-sense usage there is nothing about the notion of ethical thinking that is foreign to other professionals.  Indeed, shouldn’t all exercise physiologists be concerned about the assumption of responsibility by the sports nutritionists who refuse to recognize that they may be too close to the subject to appreciate its concerns?  Can we continue to allow the process of habituation take place without the right to interaction, discussion, and analysis?  Decisions must be made to ensure the separation of sports nutrition from exercise physiology if nutrition supplements are not going to be guided by ethical thinking.  Reflection has to take place to determine what the exercise physiologist’s responsibility is, to whom the profession is responsible, and for what.  Simply to ignore the greater risk of losing credibility by association with untrustworthy and irresponsible individuals who believe that their first responsibility is to their rules in light of their perception of athletics is foolish.  To whom are exercise physiologists responsible?  For what is the profession responsible?  By raising these questions exercise physiologists make explicit what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in sports nutrition.  Responsibility to exercise physiology is of greater importance than responsibility to those who profess to be sports nutritionists. 

Sports nutritionists, whether exercise physiologists or not, should tell the world about the volume of nutrition misinformation in advertisements of products in sports magazines.  The truth must be known.  Yet it is clear that “telling the truth” may not be all that easy to do.  The question must be asked about whether and in what way athletes, coaches, and sports nutritionists (and of course, exercise physiologists) can get rid of supplements in athletics.  Turning one’s head away from this huge problem society faces is a contradiction in the behavior of a professional.  There can be no doubt that a right to speak is conferred upon every exercise physiologist who is committed to the professional development of exercise physiology as a healthcare profession.  This is the hallmark of character building of evolving professionals who understand a conception or standard of truth that validates the ethical reality and significance of a profession. 

Conversely, there is very little truth found in advertisements of nutritional products marketed for athletes in leading sports magazines and on literally dozens and dozens of Internet sites.  The truth is that the dietary companies care about profitability, not about exercise physiology.   The CEOs understand business, marketing, and sales of products, regardless of the myths perpetuated on athletes of all ages.  Their reality is not the reality of exercise physiology.  The supplement scam is clearly defined by the 100s of brands and products marketed to increase muscle growth, testosterone levels, decrease fat, increase energy and strength.  Even more specifically, the scam has tainted the role of athletics in American and worldwide.  This is why “the supplement scam” and its deceptive marketing tactics must be dealt with through education and ethical thinking.  Those who teach sports nutrition must talk openly about the following facts outlined by the National Council Against Health Fraud’s Task Force on Ergogenic Aids [4]: 

1. Taking of scientific research out of context 
2. Claiming products are “university tested” when no research has been done 
3. Using unauthorized endorsements by professional organizations 
4. Using false statements that research is currently being performed 
5. Using testimonials 
6. Referencing research inappropriately 
7. Patenting products (which is not proof of effectiveness), and 
8. Engaging in mass media publicity 

As exercise physiologists, we have the responsibility to tell the truth.  There are risks in using unregulated and untested supplement products.  The majority of the “fat metabolizers”, “anabolic optimizers”, “fat burners”, and “strength boosters” do not work, and they have little to no serious scientific support [5].  Indeed, Sarah H. Short’s quote [6] bears repeating: “The nonprofessionals have already surrounded us.”  In short, sports nutrition courses should not be about fraud and deceptive practices to exploit athletics.  Exercise physiologists should help athletes, coaches, and the public see through the nutrition supplement myths.  They should teach what is fraud and what is quackery?  Students should be taught total nutrition concepts and not the ergogenic aid quick fix approach to athletics and physical performance.  They should understand the differences between ethical promotion and deceptive promotion, ethical advertising and deceptive, unethical advertising, and the publishing of scientific articles and the promotion of articles as science that is fraudulent. 

The word “fraudulent” is always a powerful word, and some of my colleagues believe it is too strong when used in the context of sports nutrition.  Not all unproven fitness supplements are necessarily quackery.  However, exercise physiologists who promote unproven supplements, practices, or procedures to enhance physical performance are quacks.  This should not come as a surprise.  The hype and promotion of enhancers with words like “may, should, appears, and in theory” in addition to the money that is made on false hopes and the desire to win by athletes defines their quackery.  Education is the exercise physiologists’ weapon of choice and solution to the athletic cons, quacks, and frauds.  This is why accreditation is important, and why exercise physiologists must step up to the plate of professional development.  Promises, unproven remedies, guaranteed results, secret or exclusive formulas, and testimonials cannot stand up to a scientific-based, accredited education. 

The trouble is that there are too many sports nutritionists involved directly with supplement companies.  Not all of them are doctorate prepared.  Some have dubious credentials from non-accredited institutions.  They know that athletics is a fertile ground for questionable practices and unsubstantiated claims to increase energy or enhance athletic performance.  This is why the Internet is full of websites that sell sports nutrition products.  Just recently, on May 21, 2004 at 8:10 pm, the following unsolicited email was sent to the ASEP National Office:

Dear Sirs! 
Our company is selling sports pharmacology.  We are ready to offer you more than 360 steroids’ descriptions.  We are able to ship our produce to European countries, USA, Canada, and some other bulk qualities.  We have interesting prices!  Hoping to establish fruitful business relations with you!

The prospects are good that this kind of mass mailing to convince athletes it is in their best interest to use steroids will not only continue but get worse.  Strangely enough, there is relatively little debate among exercise physiologists about nutritional needs of athletes, sport ethics, safety, fairness, and moral character [7].  The discussion of ethical implications of continuing sports nutrition as it is presently conceived does not exist among exercise physiologists.  Therefore, by silence, there is the assumed endorsement of supplements, drugs, and even gene-doping.  The continued misuse of enhancers of athletic performance is a failure on behalf of exercise physiologists worldwide to draw the distinction between good nutrition and bad nutrition that encourages athletes to unfairly increase their biological capabilities.  The traditionally valued concepts of fair play and well being of athletes have been purchased by bottom line policies of big business.  And, yet this kind of performance modification has not reached the classrooms of sports nutrition courses.  Therefore, students are unprepared to discuss the serious ethical and legal concerns and implications. 

The study of exercise physiology ethics as it bears directly on athletic performance should be a required part of every sports nutrition course.  It is no longer satisfactory for exercise physiologists to continue being subservient to arguments of past thinking.  Nor is it satisfactory to simply allow others to continue benefiting at the expense of the athletes.  The issues concern largely, though not exclusively, two important principles:  (1) professional development of exercise physiology; and (2) ethical practice of exercise physiology.  Rather than continue to allow those who support the use of supplements define exercise physiology, it is time to establish the means by which it is possible to distance quackery from exercise physiology.  This thinking has emerged largely out of the ethical side of what it means to be a profession, rather than differences in research and/or business interests. 

To this extent, it is unethical, unprofessional and, very likely, legally questionable for the exercise physiologist to permit or encourage in whatever manner or place available the use of drugs or supplements to enhance performance for competition.  As to the question of unfair competition, however dated the concept might be to some readers, it is nonetheless important to a lot of people.  Athletes are always going to approach their sport with important differences of all kinds.  That is part of the meaning of “to win” or “to be successful”.  When an otherwise less physically developed or genetically gifted athlete musters the determination to win without drugs, supplements, or even down the road, without genetic manipulation, the athlete learns important lessons about him- or herself.  Society has come to expect that the athlete’s experiences will help with handling other experiences in life.  These assumptions and expectations are founded on ethical issues involved that elevation of sports to the level of the “greater good” for all society. 

Hence, it is important that the sporting community and exercise physiologists, in particular, do not forget this kind of bottom line thinking.  Drugs, supplements, and anything that results in an unfair physical advantage in sports are unethical because the physical competition among athletes is supposed to be founded on the natural abilities of all athletes.  Any unearned advantage is cheating.  It cannot advance the value of sports.  It only compromises sporting competition much in the same way as cheating in business destroys the public’s trust in the CEOs.  It is worth noting that the public opinion is against drugs and supplements in sports, regardless of any rationale otherwise [8].   Of course, the concerns about drugs and supplements have not reach a critical level of interference with how society thinks about athletics and, therefore, there are few, if any, corrective measures at the present time.  The danger with exercise physiologists failing to initiate a correction in the dietary companies engineering of society is obvious and all too commonplace.  Society cannot benefit from business continuing to engineer athletics.  No one benefits from athletes who have little appreciation for ethics no more so than the idea of MBA graduates driven by radial and unprofessional thinking. 

This is an understanding that needs to be looked at and studied extensively by sports nutritionists and exercise physiologists.  The tension between the two is new, but absolutely necessary.  Exercise physiologists cannot be caught in the use or teaching of designer steroids or any activity that is likely to disqualify athletes.  Performance-enhancing supplements like creatine monohydrate or phosphagen should not be used by athletes, regardless of the concept of the free market to do as it will.  It is simply a prevailing belief that is flawed, and it is an unfortunate approach to athletics that is driven by advertising, marketing strategies, product development, and misinformation.  The reality is, although it’s clear that there is much still to be learned, exercise physiologists must unify their thinking and stand together against quackery and fraud in sports nutrition and athletics.  This does not imply that all sports nutritionists are quacks, rather that the business framework is so strong among some that it distracts from the profound work of exercise physiologists as healthcare professionals.  It is for this reason that exercise physiologists must be strong, persuasive, and persistent in their efforts to build a moral sense back into sports nutrition and athletics. 

“The use of [food drugs] to improve athletic performance should…be discouraged, since it is unlikely that such products really work and, were they to work, their use would be ethically improper and thus should be prohibited, even if they are not listed as doping agents.” – Michelangelo Giampietro, Pasquale Bellotti and Giovani Caldarone [9] 
1. American Society of Exercise Physiologists. (2004). Code of Ethics. [Online].
2. Kreider, R.B. et al. (2003). Exercise & Sport Nutrition: A Balanced Perspective for Exercise Physiologists. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 6:8:August [Online].
3. Boone, T. (2003). The Sports Supplement Disagreement: A Call for a Dialogue About Values and Obligations of University Teachers. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 6:8:August [Online].
4. Lightsey, D.M. and Attaway, J.R. (1992). Deceptive tactics used in marketing purported ergogenic aids. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal. 14:26-31. 
5. Boone, T. (2003). Cheating in Sports. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 6:9:September [Online].
6. Short, S.H. (1994). Health Quackery: Our Role As Professionals. Journal of American Dietetic Association. 94:607-611. 
7. Boone, T. (2003). The Nutritional Needs of Athletes. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 6:9:September [Online].
8. Miah, A. (2002). Bioethics, Sport and The Genetically Enhanced Athlete. Journal for Medical Ethics and Bioethics. 9:3-4:1-6. 
9. Giampietro, M., Bellotti, P., and Caldarone, G. (1998). Nutritional Supplements. New Studies in Athletics. 13:2:31-33, p. 34. 

Advertisement - Westfield Group / Washington Adventist Hospital

      a division of Monster Worldwide

Total Rewards
Totally Great Workplace
Greatness doesn’t happen by accident. At Westfield Group, our 150 plus year history of success was built on a solid foundation of trust, integrity, respect and knowledge sharing. Every day, these principles touch every aspect of our diverse insurance, financial and banking businesses. And our people are at the heart of what we do. Westfield is committed to providing our employees with the resources they need to meet the challenges of personal growth, family involvement, financial security, community participation, professional development and total well being. Our outstanding benefits package reflects our support of these core values. 

Wellness Programs Specialist
Working at Westfield’s Inn Club, this position is responsible for a variety of Health and Fitness activities which include assisting in the day-to-day education and exercise prescription of the Inn Club members; providing daily health and fitness screening (such as blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.); instructing aerobic, stretch and tone classes; providing nutritional information; helping prepare health topics for communication pieces; maintaining exercise equipment; providing health education presentations; and coordinating Recreational Programming/Leagues. 

The ideal applicant will have a Bachelor’s degree in exercise physiology, health promotion, athletic training, physical or health education (or related field), or comparable work experience in health, exercise and/or physiology. The ability to teach exercise classes and demonstrate appropriate use of exercise equipment is a must. A valid Ohio driver’s license with safe driving record will be necessary as the position involves some travel. Good PC skills are also essential. 

Based at our headquarters in an attractive historical community in Medina County (approximately 45 minutes southwest of Cleveland, Ohio), we provide a competitive total compensation package--including access to the Westfield Group Country Club and Golf Course. Please submit your resume with salary requirements to: 

Westfield Group 
Attn: WPS-KKF 
P.O. Box 5001 
One Park Circle 
Westfield Center, OH 44251-5001 
fax: 330-887-4561 
To learn more about us, visit


Washington Adventist Hospital
You have empathy and experience. We have a lot in common. 
You have a calling to compassionate care. Washington Adventist Hospital is advanced enough to know how vitally important that is. Here at our acute care hospital in Takoma Park, MD, you can deliver the high-quality, heart-felt and clinically excellent care you believe in.  We invite you to join us in the following opportunity: 

Exercise Physiologist/Cardiac Rehabilitation (PRN)
Requirements include a Bachelor’s degree in Exercise, Physiologist, Health Science or related field; minimum 3 years of experience in Cardiac Rehabilitation as well as ACSM and BCLS certification. 

Send your resume to: 
Washington Adventist Hospital 
HR, 7600 Carroll Avenue, 
Takoma Park, MD 20912 
or e-mail:
Fax: (301) 315-3110, indicating position of interest. 
Please reference RDJ/ASEP with any response. 
To apply online or find out more, visit:
EOE/pre-employment drug screening. A member of Adventist Healthcare. 

Register for ASEP email updates

Copyright ©1997-2004 American Society of Exercise Physiologists. All Rights Reserved.  All materials posted on this site are subject to copyrights owned by the American Society of Exercise Physiologists (ASEP). Any reproduction, retransmission, or republication (in whole or in part) of any document or information found on this site is expressly prohibited, unless otherwise agreed to by ASEP and expressly granted in writing to consent to reproduce, retransmit, or republish the material. All other rights reserved.