PEPonline
Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline

An international electronic
journal for exercise physiologists
ISSN 1099-5862

Vol 11 No 3 March 2008

 



Paradigm Shifts in Exercise Physiology
Jeremy Fransen, MA
Doctorate Student
The University of New MexicoAlbuquerque
Albuquerque, NM
 

Each of us tends to think we see things as they are, that we are objective.  But this is not the case.  We see the world, not as it is, but as we are- or, as we are conditioned to see it.

-- STEVEN COVEY

 
Thomas Kuhn introduced the phrase ‘paradigm shift’ in his highly influential landmark book titled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [1].  The term paradigm means perception, assumption, model, theory, or frame of reference.  When one experiences a paradigm shift, they see things from a new and different perspective and realize that the old way of thinking was incomplete or incorrect.  Kuhn makes his case for a paradigm shift by elucidating that every significant scientific breakthrough has come when the old ways of thinking are broken down and replaced by a new paradigm.  There have been several paradigm shifts within the relatively new field of exercise physiology, but none more important than the current paradigms taking shape.
 
Breaking from tradition is difficult and is always met with resistance.  Virtually every great human achievement and discovery has been, at first, discredited, obfuscated, and oftentimes met with physical violence.  The irony is that the fundamental task of science is to explain phenomena by discovering or inventing general explanations for natural events [2].  Does it seem logical to discredit new ways of thinking based on the fact that they don’t support the status quo?  How do we know the current dogma is correct?  These are the questions exercise physiologists should ask when they think about pertinent issues such as:

1)      Exercise physiology / exercise science:  Is exercise physiology the same as exercise science?  Why do some refer to themselves as exercise scientists (or exercise specialists, exercise technicians, etc.) and others as exercise physiologists?  Why are some academic programs under the title of exercise science (or human performance, sport science, etc.) and yet others prefer to use exercise physiology?

2)      Resistance exercise / endurance exercise: Why has the field of exercise physiology chosen to focus research and emphasis on endurance exercise at the expense of resistance training?  Is one form or type of exercise ‘superior’ to others?  Although resistance exercise and endurance training have their unique physiologic advantages, what are the core issues that underlie the seemingly divided nature of these two forms of exercise?

3)      Professional development / Professional stagnation:  Is it logical that exercise physiologists have their own professional organization?  Why are exercise physiologists slow to understand the important role of professional identity? Why are exercise physiologists content to let multi-disciplinary organizations guide the future of their chosen field? 


Exercise Physiology / Exercise Science

What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.

-- OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES

The most pertinent issue today in exercise physiology is the disconnection between students, teachers, and the general public as to what is exercise physiology.  Much of this has to do with the evolution of exercise physiology.  From a historical perspective, it is important to know that exercise physiology developed from physical education [3].  What was once Department of Physical Education is now Department of Kinesiology (or Department of Exercise Science, Human Movement Studies, Human Performance, and so forth).  Through these departments arose the sub-disciplines of physical education such as biomechanics, motor learning, sports history, sport sociology, exercise psychology, and exercise physiology.  It seems logical that there should be consistency in the naming of the department and the specific discipline.

Part of the problem is that departments of basic and clinical science at most major research institutions are understaffed and rarely advertise exercise physiology as the focus of the department [4]. Brooks et al. go on to say that the reason for this lack of focus in major research institutions is their diverse missions that do not include a health-and-fitness related purpose.  Another reason is that the National Research Council (NRC) does not rank exercise science, kinesiology, physical education, or other similar named departments (exercise physiology, sports science, etc.).  Because of this, the institutions are unwilling to allocate resources to departments that have no hope of attaining an NRC ranking. 

The basic and logical approach is simple- pick one name to call the department: Exercise Science, Kinesiology, or Physical Education.  Next, define all sub-disciplines within the exercise sciences such as biomechanics, sport psychology, physical education, and exercise physiology.  Finally, rename and properly structure all the disciplines of the exercise sciences within all academic programs throughout the United States.  Sounds simple?  It is!  From a critical thinking approach, the problem (and solution) is painfully obvious.  Of course, there will be paperwork to fill out, it will cost money, and I’m sure some will want to debate the finer points.  That’s great!  The point is that exercise physiologists need to join together and solve this urgent dilemma.     

Using the new paradigm, it is apparent that exercise science is a general term describing a diverse field of study which includes exercise physiology.  Therefore, there has to be a fundamental change in the use of both exercise science and exercise physiology.  Some may proclaim that the argument is just semantics; that it doesn’t matter what we call ourselves!  In reality, it certainly does matter because a professional is defined by his or her title.  Until there is consensus and change within the field, being stuck in the exercise science paradigm is one of the deepest ruts all exercise physiologists must ultimately climb out of. 

Exercise physiologists are not sport scientists, exercise specialists, exercise technicians, or personal trainers.  The reasons are varied as to why the different titles are used.  Some may want to focus on working with athletes whilst others decide to specialize in the clinical setting.  Although we all have our areas of interest, there should be one person who knows and understands all areas of exercise- clinical, research, sports-specific, endurance training, resistance training, and everything in between. We could create subtitles such as: lactate threshold specialist; clinical gerontologist exercise specialist; EKG exercise technicians; exercise biochemist; or, how about- neuromuscular exercise scientist?  Why not break everything down and create entire new fields of study?  The answer is that we don’t need to.  Exercise physiologists should be knowledgeable in all of the above mentioned topics and then some.  Over time, when all the dust settles with regards to the title confusion, there will be one true exercise expert- the exercise physiologist.    


Resistance Exercise / Endurance Exercise

People should think things out fresh and not accept conventional terms and the conventional way of doing things.

-- R. BUCKMINSTER FULLER

Although it is obvious exercise physiology examines the role of exercise on the human body, it’s interesting to think of our view of what exercise is.  In other words, the paradigm of what constitutes exercise has changed over time.  For example, at the turn of the 20th century, exercising usually entailed performing callisthenic and gymnastic type exercises along with some clubs, dumbbells, kettlebells, and pulleys.  Exercise and health advocates of the time such as Eugene Sandow were known for their feats of strength and athleticism.  Without a doubt, the development and maintenance of muscular strength and health was paramount during this time period.

Now let’s fast forward to 1969 with the publication of the book Aerobics by Dr. Kenneth Cooper.  In it, Dr. Cooper extols the benefits of endurance training, which ultimately played a key role in the aerobic fitness boom of the 1970s. The general public along with exercise physiologists embraced aerobics as new research poured in raving of its benefits.  The jogging craze emerged as thousands hit the streets with their new sweatsuits and high-performance running shoes.  However, Dr. Cooper issued a scathing review of anaerobic exercise (i.e. resistance training) that only perpetrated the prevailing myths of the time [5].

Lifting weights is riddled with stereotypes such as being muscle bound (inflexible), slow, ignorant, and the ever popular misconception of muscle turning into fat.  Many women still believe that lifting weights will cause them to “bulk up” like a bodybuilder.  It is unfortunate that the general public still believes in these outdated myths.  Yet what is even more puzzling is how slow the exercise physiology community embraced resistance training.  Today it is less apparent, but still common among undergraduate (and even some graduate) courses to only briefly touch upon resistance training research and methodology.
 
Should resistance training techniques be taught only by strength and conditioning specialists and personal trainers?  Considering that musculoskeletal fitness (i.e. muscular strength, muscle endurance, bone strength) is one component of physical fitness, why would exercise physiologists not want to become experts in resistance training?  With the other components of physical fitness being cardiorespiratory endurance, body weight/body composition, and flexibility, it seems foolish that exercise physiologists would exclude one component of fitness in favor for another.  This means that exercise physiologists are, in essence, giving up one-fourth of the potential research, training, and job opportunities to other, perhaps less qualified, individuals!  Does this make sense? 

There seems to be an underlying rift between individuals that prefer endurance training and others who like to lift weights.  My crude generalization is this: many endurance athletes consider weight lifters, strongman competitors, bodybuilders, etc. to be unfit muscle-heads that are incapable of running around the block without passing out.  Conversely, resistance trained athletes view endurance athletes as emaciated and unable to lift anything but the pink dumbbells in the aerobics room.

Exercise physiologists should be immune to such an attitude, but surprisingly, I still find hints of this paradigm.  Much of it has to do with tradition.  However, the point is we need to break from the traditional paradigm that focuses on endurance exercise and expand our knowledge and research in resistance training.  While it is true that we all have preferences when it comes to exercise, on a very basic level there is no difference between endurance and resistance exercise because, well, they are both exercise!  Unless we redefine exercise, exercise physiologists should research, teach, and perform both resistance and endurance exercise to be able to understand and appreciate the differences and to improve their own health and fitness levels.


Professional Development / Professional Stagnation

The belief that exercise physiology can grow into a profession from within sports medicine is simply not true.

-- TOMMY BOONE


The most tragic example paradigm entrapment is the widely held belief that exercise physiology is the same as, or belongs to, sports medicine.  It becomes obvious that exercise physiology is not sports medicine by reviewing the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) website mission statement: The American College of Sports Medicine promotes and integrates scientific research, education, and practical applications of sports medicine and exercise science to maintain and enhance physical performance, fitness, health, and quality of life.  Notice that nowhere in the mission statement is exercise physiology!  Sure, exercise science is used, but it should now be clear that exercise science is a general term describing many professions including exercise physiology.

Now let’s look at the definition of sports medicine on Wikipedia: Sports medicine specializes in preventing, diagnosing and treating injuries related to participating in sports and/or exercise, specifically the rotation or deformation of joints or muscles caused by engaging in such physical activities.  Clearly, sports medicine specializes in injuries related to physical activity.

After reading the above, the obvious question is this: If exercise physiology is not sports medicine, why do exercise physiologists support umbrella organizations such as ACSM at the expense of their own professional organization- American Society of Exercise Physiologists (ASEP)?  There may be several reasons including tradition, peer pressure from colleagues, and blind ignorance of not knowing that we already have our own organization- ASEP!!!  In fact, many in the exercise physiology field simply do not care.  I find this amazing because if you don’t care about your profession, why are you in it? 

Many will look at this section as simply ASEP vs. ACSM, which it is not.  There is no reason you can’t be a member of both organizations.  Athletic trainers, physical therapists and physicians are all members of ACSM.  The difference is that the other professions have their own organization that supports them as professionals.  Exercise physiologists did not have their own organization until 1998 with the founding of ASEP.  It has been 10 years and many in the field still don’t understand that ACSM is not the organization of exercise physiologists!  Until the light bulb switches on in the collective conscience of exercise physiologists around the country, we will remain in the dark ages with respect to professional development. 

This doesn’t mean things can’t change.  In many other countries including England, Australia, Canada, Brazil, and South Korea, academics and professionals in the field have developed a professional identity for exercise physiologists through the development of professional organizations [6].  In fact, if anything, the United States is a good example of what not to do with regards to professional development in exercise physiology.  Dr. Robert Robergs from the University of New Mexico put it this way, “Hopefully, other countries of the world will learn from the inadequacies of the U.S. model, develop a strong professional identity for exercise physiology, and reap the benefits from such professionalism.” 

Exercise physiologists throughout the U.S. need to come together and support ASEP as their one and only professional organization.  Being a member of other multi-disciplinary organizations is perfectly fine as long as there is an understanding that other organizations do not put the interest of the exercise physiologist as their highest priority.  Oftentimes, members of other organizations will make statements to the fact that they have more members or that they “control” exercise physiology.  First of all, it only makes sense that other organizations that have been around for over 50 years will have more members.  Along the same lines, by definition multi-disciplinary organizations should have more members because they represent more than one professional field.  Finally, the statement that one organization “controls” exercise physiology in the U.S. is absurd.  ACSM does not control exercise physiology.  ASEP does not control exercise physiology. Exercise physiologists control exercise physiology!  Remember, the future of exercise physiology is in YOUR hands. 

 


References
 
  1. Covey, S.R. (1990).  The 7 Habits of Highly Successful People.  Simon and Schuster Inc. New York, New York.
  2. Pedhazur, E. (1997). Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Predication, Third edition. Wadsworth, United States
  3. Powers, S.K. & Howley, E.T. (2006).  Exercise Physiology: Theory and Application to Fitness and Performance, Sixth edition. McGraw-Hill, United States.
  4. Brooks, G.A., Fahey, T.D., & Baldwin, K.M. (2004).  Exercise Physiology: Human Bioenergetics and Its Applications, Fourth edition. McGraw-Hill, United States.
  5. Siff, M.C. (2003). Supertraining, Sixth edition. Denver, CO United States.
  6. Robergs, R.A. (2008). Exercise Physiology: An Electronic Text and Learning Experience, Nexsis.org, LLC.


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