PEPonline
Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline

An international electronic
journal for exercise physiologists
ISSN 1099-5862

Vol 11 No 12 December 2008

 


Exercise Physiology is Not Physical Education or Sports Medicine
Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, FASEP, EPC
Professor and Chair
Department of Exercise Physiology
The College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN 55811
 
Knowing the truth will set you free, but only if you are willing to embrace it.
 
Recently, I read in The Academic Ethic [1] the following statement:  “A university education should not have as a task to prepare students for occupations which deal with routine tasks.”  I couldn’t agree more!  There are, of course, dozens of academic degrees that prepared students to do nothing but “routine tasks.”  This isn’t just wrong.  It is driven by tradition and the inertia of present-day circumstances that apparently had little to no foresight. 
 
Often, more so in the past than today, the distinctive task of the Department of Health and Physical Education graduated young men and women who understood their destiny.  It is no secret that the majority of them secured jobs in teaching and coaching.  Then, students understood the connection between why they were attending college and their career in physical education.  These same students took a variety of activity courses, much like the students of the 21st century physical education major.  They also took courses such as kinesiology, motor learning, sports biomechanics, sports nutrition, and “physiology of exercise.”
 
When the physical education major came under severe attach for lacking quality and integrity as an academic major and, interestingly, at the same time, various doctorate prepared physical educators were expressing an interest in research, two things happened.  First, to survive as part of the college system, many of the physical education departments became known as the Department of Kinesiology or the Department of Exercise Science.  Unfortunately, much of the chaos (and meaningless) of today’s undergraduate so-called “exercise physiology” related majors is a direct product of this ill-defined and poorly planned departure from physical education.  Now, there are probably 30 or more different undergraduate degrees [2] that are only one to three courses different from the original physical education major.
 
Second, the physical education departments that had become one of a dozen or so different names (such as the Department of Human Performance) created the “idea” of an exercise physiology doctorate.  This was usually at the persistence of those within the department who had an interest in research to better understand sports training and athletics.  After all, even though those who took responsibility for teaching several exercise physiology courses, and even after acquiring the title, Exercise Physiologist” – they were still doctorate prepared physical educators.  Again, here, the emphasis was on improving the credibility of the department’s standing in the academic community.
 
Two conditions resulted from this thinking.  First, it wasn’t until 30 or 40 years did it gradually become apparent to others that the department chairs and the faculty (particularly, those who referred to themselves as exercise physiologists) did not have any understanding of what they had done or even why.  Consequently, it seems that no one in the academic community is even thinking about what went wrong!  To them it is as it should be (i.e., exercise physiologists teaching in an exercise science department) and, frankly, that is a condition of failed involvement, if not, disregard for the essence of a college education. 
 
The second condition is equally as serious.  Without critically assessing what the physical educators had done, they simply created (and in some cases) converted the physical education doctorate to the so-called exercise physiology doctorate.  Many, if not most, students graduate today calling themselves “exercise physiologists” and, yet the actual academic degree is in physical education with a concentration in exercise science.  Or, they graduate from a Department of Kinesiology with a major in kinesiology with an emphasis in exercise physiology.  The problem of so many types and mixtures of degree programs is that none of it allows for a true academic degree in exercise physiology.
 
At first glance, none of this may come across to the reader as a problem.  But, it is a big problem for numerous reasons.  Think about it.  Can a physical therapist graduate from a non-physical therapy department?  Can nurses graduate from something other than an academic degree in nursing?  How about the psychologist or the occupational therapist?  Even to those who don’t want to see the problems that have resulted from not having a philosophy and/or vision to guide the development of exercise physiology, it should be obvious that the initial problems with physical education decades ago now show up in exercise physiology. 
 
The truth has value and can be the reason to do things differently.  But, its power lies in accepting it whether by faith or stubborn commitment.  Here is the point, exercise physiologists cannot continue to shoot from the hip declaring themselves as “physiologists” or even “scientists” however easy it is for them to do so.  One simple reason is because there exists an academic doctorate in physiology and unless an exercise physiologist has earned that degree as well, then, he/she is not a physiologist. 
 
Again, this brings up the lack of understanding by the department chairs and/or deans when the Internet information states they graduate exercise physiologists (doctorate or otherwise) and, yet students complete a degree in exercise science or kinesiology either with or without an emphasis in exercise physiology.  The fact that this is not done in any other credible healthcare profession violates the academic ethic and value of the college experience and the students’ commitment.  Clearly, this problem is part of the failing of the department chairs of what are essentially physical education departments and the faculty who called themselves exercise physiologists to see for a fact that there is an inherent commitment to think straight and to stop the denial of their responsibility to change in light of new observations and analyses.
 
These truths are exactly those espoused by the ASEP leadership.  It hasn’t been easy, but they understand the truth must be embraced.  This is what justified the American Society of Exercise Physiologists, and the specific obligations of the leadership, especially to the ASEP Code of Ethics.  Imagine this, if the importance of a college degree is a myth, then, there is no point to paying the high tuition cost and attending college.  If the purpose and title of academic degrees are a myth, there is no use selecting a particular degree program.  Major in electrical engineering and after college, then, open a medical practice.  Doesn’t make any sense, does it?  How about this?  Major in exercise science and after college, then, seek out a job as an exercise physiologist.
 
While it is obvious that department chairs and others immerse themselves in all kinds of study and work that demands their attention, they can’t forego their responsibility to spend time thinking about the nature of what they are doing.  That is why it is urgently important to convey the message of this article in as many forms as possible.  Otherwise, at some point in the future others will get it.  They will then do what they can to erase all the good that has transpired even in the middle of the chaos that persists.  Hence, why not do the right things now for the right reasons regardless of whether others get it or not?  Why not engage others in the discussion that the purpose of college is to prepare students to transition into career opportunities?  Why not convert all the so-called exercise physiology related degree programs into 100% exercise physiology?
 
After all, again, it is rather obvious that the purpose of a college education is not to prepare students to engage in task-oriented jobs.  And, frankly, that is exactly what exercise science, kinesiology, or sports science is doing.  None of these degree programs (and others like them) has a sufficient body of scientific knowledge, research, inquiry, and philosophy sufficient to educate a healthcare practitioner.  This kind of thinking often rubs the reader the wrong way.  However, please appreciate that just as wrong as it is for medical doctors to put making money before the care of their patients, it is wrong for the academic profession not to consider correcting its weaknesses.  Not doing so is the essence of encouraging a continuous drift away from the purpose of the academic profession.
 
No profession is exempt from its ethical obligation, regardless of how busy it gets or how challenged its members are to doing their jobs.  The decades of not addressing the correctness or lack thereof of all academic degrees that suggest the graduate is rightfully an exercise physiologist is simply unethical.  Also because attending college is more costly today than years ago, many administrators should immediate set into motion corrective steps.  Their students are experiencing far too many diminished opportunities. 
 
Note also it is clear that the doctorate prepared physical educator and the athletic trainer do not actually care whether the exercise physiologist faculty member ever stands up and speaks out for change.  They understand what it means to have a career driven degree and, yes, they understand the value of a credible certification and/or licensure.  In fact, most faculty understand all too well that while the exercise science degree was created to improve upon the physical education degree, it didn’t work.  Worse yet, it is even laughable because exercise science is essentially a physical education degree without the opportunity to teach and/or coach in the public schools. 
 
Only truth smells sweet forever and illusions are deadly as a canderworm.
-- Samm Sinclair Baker
“Advertising: The Permissible Lie”
Mass Culture Revisited
 
If the exercise science degree had become what it was intended to be, then, personal trainers wouldn’t be standing on every street corner today.  Mr. Six Pack and Miss Tights would understand that the illusion of what they are doing is credible healthcare is “deadly as a canderworm.”  And, worse yet, the big time American College of Sports Medicine is promoting personal trainer certifications.  Talk about profit without honor!  It is truly deception at its worse.  The organization leaders not only failed to promote the profession of exercise physiology, they have continually watched out for themselves at the expense of students.  When the history of this process is finally told it will be understood as a deliberate deception to buttress sports medicine at the expense of a failed rhetoric [3]. 
 
Once again, please appreciate that significant oversights in sports medicine activities are commonplace, and far too often the leaders have been the academic exercise physiologists.  They are to blame for much of the meaningless fitness, trainer, and nutrition certifications that have popped up in recent decades.  It is illuminating to read the websites.  One must wonder just how obvious is it to those who search the Internet that 90% of the certifications are excellent examples of fraud. 
 
Indeed, just as there is fraudulent advertising [4], there is “fraudulent certifications.”  It is an insult to a healthcare professional’s intelligence to not know this point.  Collectively, the mass numbers of weekend-warrior certifications represent an offensive, if not, silly, affront to the ASEP efforts of having built the professional infrastructure to the professionalism of exercise physiology.  Again, here, the central problem is fraud.  At no time is it right to intentionally misrepresent business dealings with the public.  It is just wrong, it is an ethical problem as well as a legal one, although the latter hasn’t been challenged in courts.
 
If it is true that the behavior of the collectively membership of the healthcare community is determined by the leadership of the respective professions, then, a great profession is a Society of individuals in which its membership thinks greatly of their responsibility to engage and support their leaders.  Thinking otherwise can only be consistent with a low behavior of colleagues that can only mean a descending standard for those who believe in exercise physiology.  Fortunately, the good news is that the ASEP leaders are moving in the right direction to avoid the wrongdoing of others who have converged their thinking with blatantly wrong people.  These individuals have joined with the gatekeeper guardians of the sports medicine initiatives.
 
It would be a great relief to see students and colleagues stand up to negative influence on ASEP.  History demonstrates that it is just a matter of time, wouldn’t it be better if it was earlier rather than later?  The key to the ASEP reform is to unite and share the work of building the profession together as one.  There is nothing novel about this point of view.  Professional leaders are growing more aware that a new reality is within a moment’s grasp.  Hence, the concept of professional stewardship and responsibility to ethical thinking puts more emphasis on the professionalism of exercise physiology than do all the sports medicine certifications. 
 
Having said that, it is prudent to support the ASEP organization, its leaders, and the membership.  Simply stated, it is necessary to share with the world that neither physical education nor exercise science is exercise physiology.  This is also the case with sports medicine.  There is nothing about ACSM that allows it to represent the profession of exercise physiology.  Instead, the reality is that the main effort to professionalize exercise physiology lies within the ASEP organizations. 

 

 

References
 
  1. Shils, E. (1983). The Academic Ethic. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  2. Boone, T. (2000). Professional Development in Exercise Physiology. Edwin Mellen Press.
  3. Boone, T. (2005). Exercise Physiology: Proafessional Issues, Organizational Concerns, and Ethical Trends. Edwin Mellen Press.
  4. Rosenberg, B. and White, D. M. (1971). Mass Culture Revisited. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.




Copyright ©1997-2008 American Society of Exercise Physiologists   All Rights Reserved.