The Revolution in Exercise Physiology
Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, FASEP, EPC
Professor and Chair
Director, Exercise Physiology Laboratories
Department of Exercise Physiology
The College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN 55811

WHAT IS exercise physiology?  If you were to read through the usual definition in popular exercise physiology texts [1], you would find something like this:  “Exercise physiology is the study of how our bodies’ structures and functions are altered when the body is exposed to acute and chronic bouts of exercise.”  What is wrong with this definition?  First, it bears little relation to the 21st century view of exercise physiology.  As a healthcare profession, exercise physiology is more complex, more informative, and far more helpful in dealing with lifestyle issues.

Just for comparison, this is the definition of exercise physiology, as defined by the leadership of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists [2]:  “Exercise physiology is the identification of physiological mechanisms underlying physical activity, the comprehensive delivery of treatment services concerned with the analysis, improvement, and maintenance of health and fitness, rehabilitation of heart disease and other chronic diseases and/or disabilities, and the professional guidance and counsel of athletes and others interested in athletics, sports training, and human adaptability to acute and chronic exercise. 

The exercise physiology that students of the 21st century are studying is different from just the emphasis on sport training.  It addresses a far broader range of issues than does research per se.  When someone is asked about exercise physiology, that person would usually think of a doctorate prepared researcher or teacher.  Today, the exercise physiologist is a person who has an academic degree in exercise physiology, or who is certified by ASEP to practice exercise physiology [via the Exercise Physiologist Certified exam (EPC)], or who has a doctorate degree with an academic degree or emphasis in exercise physiology from an accredited college or university [2].

 

Life Shouldn't be About Quick Fixes
The public’s desire for guidance about all issues of lifestyle management is more than Fitness 101 with a personal trainer certification with an emphasis in strength development.  However popular and increasingly commonplace it is to think in terms of “the gym” or “the workout,” neither is adequate in dealing with the entire spectrum of health issues.  Life isn’t about quick fixes for serious problems.  Electrical gizmos, balls, and fancy looking exercise equipment rely on simple answers to complex problems.  Such equipment and thinking are not the answers to America’s health concerns.  This does not mean that all such ideas are always wrong.  On the contrary, at times, they have their value that is verified by later work.

 

In general, though, it is safe to conclude that exercise physiologists have many nonscientific competitors.  Some are still popular within exercise physiology.  And, to a considerable degree, they will remain meaningless as long as they are on the outside of exercise physiology.  There is also the concern, even if the piece of equipment or product does work, whether it violates professional and ethical standards. As an example, if exercise physiologists were to produce a performance enhancing substance that is demonstrated to improve athletic performance, there are numerous ethical questions that must be addressed.  That is part of the role of being a professional, and it is a significant change in the professionalism of exercise physiologists. But, thinking critically and creatively about exercise physiology has become a challenging undertaking.  Presently, the requirement for “open-mindedness” is more than some members of the profession can handle.  This is a confusing result of years of engaging science without a guiding set of principles as to what is right or wrong behavior.  But, nonetheless, it is our reality. 

 

Thinking Objectively
Members of the profession must be willing to assess exercise physiology and make objective judgments on the basis of well-supported reasons and evidence.  It includes the ability to be creative and forthcoming with new ideas and leadership.  The choices are not always easy, especially when restructuring of exercise physiology has created subtle but profound changes that will reach far into the 21st century.  Applying what exercise physiologists know is always a challenge.  It is more than just opinion as well.  While it doesn’t ignore the past way of doing things, it pushes for new opportunities and new thinking.  The ASEP leaders do not accept their future based on past thinking.  Their motto is “healthcare” not fitness professionals or personal trainers.  Unlike other organizations that speak to fitness and strength development, exercise physiologists are board certified healthcare professionals.  It is within this struggle that the ASEP leadership works to move exercise physiologists from hanging on to the narrow interpretations of what is exercise physiology.

To lead therefore requires the willingness to make “risky” decisions.  Those who refuse to go out on a limb and risk disconfirmation are not true leaders.  Leaders must be willing to change roles and behaviors while keeping their eyes open to the vulnerability of confirming their own bias.  Change is never easy.  Thinking differently is always a complex undertaking.  Changing professional roles and behaviors aren’t easy, but it is done when it is the right thing to do.  The split from past thinking to forge new connections with the public sector are grounded in the pursuit of professional development and accountability.  This is good for healthcare as well as exercise physiology.  Certainly, these changes do not happen overnight.  Instead, they emerge through a gradual growth in professionalism.

Time has come to do something about exercise physiology and all its parts.  Each of us must show some backbone [3].  There is simply no room for those who, because of their consulting interest, do not contribute to the success of exercise physiology.  While this may sound harsh, it is a key step to accountability.  The ASEP leaders must keep their commitments and deal with dilemmas straight on.  The more exercise physiologists understand they are engaged in a revolution, the greater their influence will be on softening conflicts and getting in touch with their inner selves.  This is why exercise physiologists have the obligation to speak out even if others should feel uncomfortable.

Ethics and Standards
Accountability is about doing what leaders said they would do.  Do exercise physiologists always live up to the standards expected of them?  Of course not, perhaps it is even impossible to do so.  However, when research is sponsored by private, for-profit businesses, such as supplement companies or corporations that specialize in fitness equipment, the scientific requirement of full disclosure may come between the researcher and the company’s desire to keep the data from being published.  And, simply stated, some exercise physiologists may not realize their ambition is interfering with their ability to make ethical decisions.  It is important for the leader to be able to differentiate between the two.  The ability to have a purpose in exercise physiology and to know that one is making a contribution is a very positive experience.

That is why the path of exercise physiologists should be one of contribution, not self-interest.  That is why those who are paid consultant for companies that sell supplements or exercise equipment do not have the right to capriciously or arbitrarily make important decisions that will impact the profession of exercise physiology.  Similarly, there is no room in the profession for researchers who believe it is their right to misrepresent exercise physiology content to their students.  Having the insights necessary to avoid conflicts of interest, and to be able to do something about it, is critical to the revolution in exercise physiology.  The truth is that everyone in exercise physiology must come to terms with the influence of outside money.  It is the one thing for certain that requires the attention of all exercise physiologists.

Another important point, which continues to emerge in athletics, is the ethics of physical performance.  Critics, both outside and within exercise physiology, are concerned that the influence of performance-enhancing substances has a negative impact on athletics.  To most people, the athletics should not be used in the same breath as supplements.  To others, however, they embrace both because it is their image or understanding of sports.  Thus, as difficult as it is for those who disagree strongly with the intent of my writing, the challenges and strong points of view provide a backdrop to the work that exercise physiologists must do together.  The challenges are not personal attacks.  Unfortunately, the tendency for some is to believe this is the case.  For example, can anyone actually believe that, ”…the members of ASEP have aligned themselves with a number of radical and nonsensical views.”  Isn’t it obvious that accountability is always challenged?  Individuals who feel that their thinking should not be questioned are always on the lookout for those who disagree with them.  They still do not realize that the transformation in exercise physiology involves them, and that they are also accountable for their response to change.

Professional responsibility is always personal.  The truth is that I’m required to write articles about any and all issues that may influence the integrity, growth, and development of exercise physiology.  Without this understanding, what is the point of my position after nearly 40 years as a college teacher?  Those who forget this point are obligated to think about it and the consequences of failing to place students first on their agenda.  Those who are trying to save face in their thinking may have already lost it.  Remember the quote [4]:  “One misuse of numbers is the effort to convey a false impression of certainty when the true state of affairs is uncertainty or ignorance.”

Accountability requires the ASEP leaders to demonstrate their ownership of exercise physiology and their responsibility to the students of exercise physiology.  It is not logical that the leaders can be accountable in the revolution if they don’t believe they are the force behind change.  It may be frustrating to some members of the profession.  But, much like the word motivation that comes from the Latin root meaning “to move,” those who disagree with the views of the 21st century exercise physiology thinking will need to figure out why we do it and what we do.  The ASEP vision and goal are clear to those who are in pursuit of something better.  They understand that exercise physiologists are living the end of what was their relationship with other organizations.  Now, they have entered the journey of a new paradigm.  There isn’t any need to ask for permission.  It is here, and it is upon us without the option of backing out.

Although some may disagree, the transformation doesn’t need to produce panic or unrest.  When viewed with hope and optimism, the insecurity disappears.  Each of us must examine what we can do to redesign our thinking and our work to become part of the new reality.  It may be necessary to examine the different concepts, issues, and concerns that continue to impact exercise physiology.  Anyone in my position is required to do the same.  Since I’m intimately engaged in the change process, I must write about these things to try to better understand the interactions and possibilities.

The Power of an Organization
Also, what we should remember is that the power of the ASEP organization is entrenched in its purpose.  The shared environment helps to nurture the new thinking.  And, as a result, members are not required to ask for permission from colleagues.  Thus, when a few exercise physiologists demonstrate a strong difference of opinion about what is published on PEPonline, the real question is, “How have they demonstrated their full commitment to exercise physiology as a healthcare profession?”  Similarly, what have they done to contribute to achieving the desired outcomes for their students, regardless of their interests in exercise physiology?  All things being equal, our colleagues’ reaction to opinions that differ from their views illustrate both the contributions and the limitations of 20th century exercise physiology.

Moreover, when you have reason to believe as strongly as the ASEP leaders do about academic accreditation and board certification for exercise physiologists, you, too, will become driven to invent the future of exercise physiology.  They understand the old style of teaching exercise physiology will not work in the new exercise physiology.  This is why exercise physiologists must update their thinking so they can get past the mixed messages that keep ongoing conflicts from being resolved.  This kind of thinking is designed for people who have a strong commitment to professional development.  There is no longer a reason to believe that exercise physiology is about those who do research or those who have the doctorate degree or even those who engage in very specific areas within the curriculum of exercise physiology (such as cardiac rehabilitation).

In time, exercise physiologists are likely to find that they are thinking about the building of their own professional organization even if they are not aware of it.  They will come to think about the importance of regulating the way in which different courses are taught within the profession.  Think of all the ways exercise physiology can be changed to improve its practice in the public sector.  The reliance on one particular course per se (such as exercise physiology, sports nutrition, or cardiac rehabilitation) will be less important.  The application of what exercise physiologists do will be unlocked with emphasis on the totality of the person’s health, wellness, and athletics.  To my knowledge and way of thinking, several of popular subject areas (such as electrocardiography, nutrition, biomechanics, anatomy, chemistry, and psychophysiology) taught by exercise physiologist are borrowed subjects from other fields of work.  Being aware of the importance of each of these courses to what exercise physiologists do is the first step to creating a meaningful curriculum.  The second step is to be motivated to change our past thinking so that the collective input of all the courses can be applied in the public sector.  This has become the greatest need for all of us, that is, to know what we do and how we do it with respect, credibility, and financial stability.

Rituals vs. Accountability
The leaders in the profession must show the willingness to think through these matters and, where necessary, “face the music” and change.  After all, we are healthcare professionals.  We might as well become more self-directed to improve our collective productivity and quality.  It is obviously a great challenge to create a professional organization.  There is nothing little about it.  Few of us ever get involved in doing so.  It is in the distinction between exercise physiologist and fitness professional that the notion of accountability is apparent.  Exercise physiologists must build into the ASEP organization a seamless respect for exercise physiology, professional development, and healthcare.  This is just one reason why supporting or engaging in practices that are believed to be professionally problematic needs correcting.  And, yet, despite the obvious differences of opinion, this is why it is so important to spend the time getting to know the issues.

Further, what is worse is when we fail to take the time to question the rituals and routines that have become commonplace in exercise physiology.  In particular, the notion that sports nutrition is separate from exercise physiology is foolish.  There has to be reasoning about how sports nutrition is taught in much the same way that concepts and ideas are continuously updated in other courses.  Once it was believed that coronary artery disease was “caused” by a high level of low- density lipoprotein cholesterol.  Today, the story is much more complicated.  Just as decades ago, only the type A personality had high incidence of heart disease, now it is clear that type Bs do as well.  It is equally backwards to think that the use of performance-enhancers is a given right of athletes.  Participating in sports should result in many positive lessons.  Teachers should no longer encourage the use of substance, regardless of whether they are proven or unproven to work.  Once they get past the dark side of performance-enhancers, it is an integral course with much to offer students.

But, somehow being involved in sports nutrition, either as a researcher or a consultant for the industry has created a fundamentally different way of thinking.  The belief, it seems, is that no one has the right to question their promotion of sports supplements.  If a person doesn’t agree with the use of performance enhancing substances by athletes, that person must be confused if not nuts.  Indeed, this kind of thinking has historically been the case from those employed primarily to promote sports supplements.  In a sense, the sports nutritionist who promotes supplements in class is engaged in “direct consumer advertising.”  Students are being told that the course is one big advertisement!  Therefore, students walk away with the message that supplements work.  They aren’t aware that they are being influenced to create a demand for the supplements.

The attempt to improve upon this thinking has come with criticism because those who disagree are not willing to change.  And, yet because of the nature of change itself, the impact on everyone is never easy to take.  The notion of ownership and personal involvement often drives feelings and emotions before they become organized.  This is why we must reconfigure the structure of sports nutrition within the content of exercise physiology if we are to sustain the thinking we want exercise physiologists to have.  Reconfiguring allows for honest feedback from others, however painful it may be.  Moreover, even with ideas that lend themselves to compassion for those who disagree so strongly, it is clear that the ASEP leaders must stay the course.  Because of the nature of change, organizational thinkers can expect to hear from those who have different views.   The fact that leaders can’t explain everything as well as they would like does not (or should not) keep them from trying.

Nothing is Impossible
What non-ASEP members fail to understand is that the “buying-into” the ASEP perspective [5] is important for all exercise physiologists who chose to remain part of the revolution.  Part of the perspective is in believing that nothing is impossible to do.  The object of ASEP is not just to be an organization, but “the” organization of professional development.  Thus, the buying-in may require exorcising the ideas of those who believe that they the absolute control over sports nutrition.  In fact, it is not possible to be representative of the profession without altering some of their view.  In particular, the stakeholders and investors who have chosen to remain quite about the use of sports supplements must speak up.  Otherwise, if no one takes the time to consider the consequences, those who are beneficiaries of sports nutrition, next to sports supplement industry itself, win while exercise physiology loses.  Therefore, addressing this issue is essential to the revolution in exercise physiology.

It is time for exercise physiologists to change from past thinking, from what they do and, more to the point, how they go about teaching exercise physiology courses.  However exercise physiologists do it, they must do it together.  Leaders must set a direction for new and reinforced thinking.  They must tell the truth without denial or oversimplification.  As an example, there is no longer a choice to keep teaching sports supplements versus sports nutrition.  The culture of supplement use needs to be challenged with a completely different perspective that supports the ASEP collective vision.  Instructors must take responsibility for what they teach and how they influence students.  Cathleen Krueger Wilson and Tim Porter-O’Grady [1, p. 46] said it best, “…there is always a choice: to do it willingly and with joy or to do it unwillingly with resentment.”  Does this sound familiar?  Truth telling is critical to change.

Legitimate concerns should always be heard as is true for building relationships.  However, the myth that no one has the right to disagree is dishonest.  If indeed the ideas are questionable, the risks of not responding are much greater.  Colleagues have the right to disagree.  They also have the responsibility to disagree.  Unfortunately, many good ideas are often kept from being implemented by those who have no desire to change.  The leaders are committed to change, and some (not all) are concerned about the unregulated use of sports supplements.  Naturally, if they disagree with the use of supplements, they risk rejection and possibly even isolation from colleagues.

I’m not obligated to keep my comments to myself.  As someone who cares deeply about students and the profession of exercise physiology, I’m an advocate of those to whom I teach and their opportunities as healthcare professionals.  Any leadership position is always one of being proactive.  By design, it is important enough to not always be kind or even gentle when discussing professional accountability.  This is particularly the case when the unregulated teaching of sports nutrition and its potential for conflict of interest places the exercise physiology profession in jeopardy.  This is no different from the concerns expressed about medical doctors who are paid consultants for drug companies.

The ASEP Perspective
The most salient guiding principle for exercise physiologists is a strong respect for thinking like healthcare professionals.  The risk here is thinking that just any organization is good enough.  The fact is that this is simply not true.  It is entirely incorrect, outdated, and inaccurate.  Even worse, there is the belief that a professional organization must be big to provide a basis for important decision-making.  This thinking needs rethinking rather badly.  There are already too many big organizations that are less than glamorous, exciting, and beneficial to exercise physiologists.  It is also clear that an organization of dedicated members doesn’t need to be “big” to be important or credible.  Too many people seem to think big is better or big is necessary for respect and sound thinking.  And, yet strangely enough, many of these same individuals are members of small organizations themselves. 

The ASEP perspective is gradually replacing the old worn out way of thinking.  The “noise” will always be there among those who want things to stay as they have been.  There isn’t any doubt that this is true.  The ASEP leaders are confident in their professional-based values, code of ethics, and accountability thinking.  They are confident that the old reality of exercise physiology is being replaced by the ASEP reality.  They understand that this thinking is at the root of professionalism, and that this is the same process that has driven other healthcare professions.  New concepts like accreditation and board certification are transforming the old thinking to ensure a breakthrough in exercise physiology professionalism.  ASEP members are living the new reality. 

What everyone must appreciate is this:  “Change is a complex process.”  What ASEP leaders envision for exercise physiologists takes time.  After all, the usual time frame for important changes is at least 20 or more years!  This means that breakthrough thinking isn’t something that happens in 5 or even 10 years.  Therefore, there is no reason to expect ASEP to have the resources other organizations have that have been around 50 to 80 or more years.  Significant differences in how exercise physiologists think take time to understand.  Building the infrastructure for a completely new way of thinking about sports nutrition, in particular, takes time.  But, it begins with the first article and all articles thereafter that disagree with the usual way of doing things.

Although the individuals who make light of the ASEP leadership and its accomplishments in its 7 years of existence have their own agenda, it is clear that none of it guides ASEP thinking.  One could conclude they are either confused or blind to the truth, but the reality is they are simply doing what they want to do.  They understand that the ASEP changes are short of unbelievable regardless of the criticisms otherwise.  They believe the only way to build themselves up is to tear down the leadership of ASEP.  What they also know is that the revolution is well underway.  What is now expected of exercise physiologists is short of reinventing themselves through a changed state of mind.  Those who fail to get this point or who simply brush it aside look silly to those who understand their motives.  Instead of changing through handling their failed thinking, the immediate response is to criticize anyone who believes differently.

The ASEP leaders call for exercise physiologists to have the courage to rise above the uncertainty that abounds from failed thinking.  They understand that they are engaged in a paradigm shift and that the whole framework of “who is an exercise physiologist” has been redefined and fundamentally altered forever.  Everything about exercise physiology is undergoing significant change, regardless of whether others want to accept it or not.  There is nothing about exercise science or “fitness professional” thinking that is exciting or even right.  It is all driven by years of failed thinking that undermines the profession of exercise physiology.

New concepts, like those believed by the ASEP leaders, are important to sustaining the commitment and integration of exercise physiology into the healthcare field.  Now, undergraduates don’t have to be “specialists,” “instructors,” or “trainers.”   There are options before them.  The “old” way is out.  Those entrenched in ritual and routine will be challenged for decades to come.  They, too, must come to understand that they are not serving the best interests of students when they fail to support the ASEP organization.  Consider the impact made within the past few years by those who believe in ASEP.  A practical demonstration of how awareness works was impressed upon me by a college student in the twin cities.  This young woman had written for information about exercise physiology.  She concluded that the work of the organization had a positive effect on her thinking.  She was dreaming of an unfolding future in exercise physiology as a healthcare professional.   It was the answer to the nagging question, “What am I going to be?”

Embracing the Spirit of Change
The way of professionalism is narrow and hard.  Those who want it and work for it will benefit from it.  Thus, you can see that the ASEP “buy-in” is critical.  And, equally important to appreciate is the fact that the profession is not required to reach out to those who have no intention of changing.  Similarly, those who aren’t willing to embrace the spirit of change, they will not be considered part of the change process.  This is exactly the message from the ASEP leaders.  Professionalism is about the whole versus the parts.  To recognize this may be the beginning of understanding the passion behind the ASEP vision.  The entire infrastructure of exercise physiology is changing.  Since sports nutrition is part of the whole, it too must change.  Staying together and staying the course, we will succeed.  This means learning from our own behaviors and learning from other healthcare professionals.  We cannot leave our development to yesterday’s thinking.  In fact, it is important that we acknowledge our right to tear down the traditional “bricks and mortar” of failed thinking.

Those who disagree will simply have to live with it.  That is, they too can disagree and members of ASEP can disagree with them.  Both have the right to disagree with views different from the other.  Time will tell who is right.  For the moment, the importance is that both sides have the right to disagree.  For example, some [6] want us to think that my thinking is less than scientific.  Their comments suggest that they have some special skills in analyzing the research.  Of course the idea itself is ridiculous.  Their hope is that those who are not proficient in research would not know the difference and, perhaps, agree with them.  Such thinking is wishful at best and a shot in the dark.  The uninitiated may not understand this point, but for those have decades of experience under their belts, it will immediately become obvious.  Perhaps, in the end, it boils down to being kind.  Maybe this is what we all need.

Students are always saying to me, “Is exercise physiology always about research?”  I am indebted to those who have helped me understand that the answer is, “No.”  This does not mean that research isn’t important.  By no means should exercise physiologists stop doing research.  But, there are other very important areas of exercise physiology.  I suppose this why the ASEP members are no longer constrained by the idea that doing research defines a leader or that doing research is limited only to a handful of individuals.  Obviously research is important, but it doesn’t make the exercise physiologist.  It is also important to facilitate and integrate ethical thinking and professionalism into the process of how exercise physiologists perform their research.  As an example, their work is not done with the writing of an “exercise physiology” text.  The author must also help with the professional development of exercise physiology.

If what I’ve said is viewed as being critical of those who haven’t taken the time to engage the dramatic transformations set in motion by ASEP, why not step back and take a serious look at the problems faced by students of exercise science (and related degrees)?  Why not ask them about their problems in finding financially stable and respectable jobs in the public sector?  In my opinion, exercise physiologists who teach at the college level must get involved in helping their students and doing so in the most logical way possible.  This is why the ASEP leaders are interested in critical reflection.  They want to know why change is important and how to correct problems associated with it.  This means learning from others and igniting the passion of change as something inevitable among all professions.  Leaders know that they cannot leave the undergraduate degree to chance.

Criticism and the Professional Journey
The positive side of the criticism of the ASEP leadership is that the comments are a reaction to their decision to take a risk and tackle the problems that face the profession.  They would much rather be criticized as ASEP leaders than getting praise for failing to change.  The inertia of established thinking is simple and predictable.  It must be addressed and corrected.  This is exactly what ASEP leaders are doing, which is also why the criticism is unjustified.  Major transformations are always ongoing with professions.  Thinking differently is always important and a requirement of professions.  Exercise physiology will never be what it was before the founding of ASEP.   The focus on research at the exclusion of the students’ education has created an environment characterized by self-interest and self-gain.

This is exactly why exercise physiologists must be held accountable for what they teach and how they teach it.  Other professions understand this point.  Ask a professor of physical therapy or nursing.  They understood decades ago that much of the content of their respective curricula reflects the ethical based from which the professions are founded, and that money and gifts can be used to influence industry products.  And, frankly, when the products are performance-enhancing substances, it may no longer be valid to think that judgment is sound among college teachers who are paid supplement consultants.  This is the same thinking within the medical profession when doctors are paid consultants.  If it is an issue in medicine, there isn’t any reason to believe exercise physiologists are exempt from it.

The professional journey of exercise physiologists is comprehensive and continuous.  The time has come to recognize this point.  There are no excuses for those who fail support the ASEP organization.  The organization itself is bigger than its parts because its importance defines the professional expectations and behaviors of exercise physiologists.  This is why colleagues and others must commit to learning the complexity of professionalism.  They cannot maintain excuses for avoiding the “real work” of professional accountability.  Ignorance is no excuse nor is making light of the work of the ASEP leaders.   Commitment is vital.  It is within this context that the gatekeepers must come together.  They must face their reluctance to forging a new exercise physiology and connection with ASEP leaders.  The stakes are too high not to consider the consequences at the students’ level; especially students yearn for credibility, respect, and financial stability.

As members of the exercise physiology profession do what they can towards professional development, the ASEP foundation that supports integrity is secured for decades to come.  Eventually, the revolution will influence all of us and we will become grounded in a sense of purpose never experienced before.  This is when the boundaries of what we do will be explored, tested, and expanded.  This is a very serious decade in the history of exercise physiology.  There is reason to for optimism.   The ASEP revolution is well underway.  It is a journey that will last beyond our lifetime.  I’m confident that we are on the right path.  We also have the determination to do what is necessary to get the work done.  And, yet being new at creating a new profession, there is one more important thing we must consider as we stay the course.  That one thing is simply this:  handling criticism and jealousy.  Every revolution is met with both from those who are unwilling, afraid, or don’t know how to change.

Criticism is unfair and hurtful.  Almost in every case it is an expression that needs addressing.  The problem, of course, is doing just that while staying focused on the task at hand.  And, yet the fact remains criticism cannot be ignored.  This why people and colleagues must speak up against the unprincipled statements that are written to stifle the spirit if not humiliate others.  It is all very unfortunate to observe but it is part of the change process.  The anxiety that surrounds it can best be handled by staying on task.  The ability to stay on task is empowering.  Exercise physiologists need to know that the ASEP leaders are working beyond today to strengthen the journey of true ownership of the profession.  Nothing about the revolution is being left to chance.  Problems, products, and the sense of who is right are all under analysis.

Final Thoughts
What is your choice?  Exercise science or exercise physiology?  The truth is that students believe they are majoring in exercise physiology.  Each one expects a life journey in the profession of exercise physiology.  It is only through the ASEP professional organization will exercise physiologists be moved from the specialist way of thinking to the integrated and collective thinking that underpins professionalism.  ASEP is therefore a “win-win” organization for all exercise physiologists.  This is perhaps the most important message the ASEP leaders can share with students.  Working openly and together exercise physiologists can provide for the needs of their students.  They can discern the values and meaning of exercise physiology as a healthcare profession.  At the end of the day, the quality of life, the professional experience of students and the relationships that exercise physiologists have for decades to come will be meaningfully improved.    

 

Reference

1. Wilmore, J. H. and Costill, D. L. (2004). Physiology of Sport and Exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
2. American Society of Exercise Physiologists. (2005). Home Page. [Online]. http://www.asep.org/
3. Boone, T. (2004). Show Some Backbone. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 7:11 [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/ShowSomeBackbone.html
4. Best, J. (2001).  Damned Lies and Statistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
5. Boone, T. (2005). Exercise Physiology: Professional Issues, Organizational Concerns, and Ethical Trends.  The Edwin Mellen Press. [Online]. http://www.mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?aid=5727&pc=10
6. Kreider, R. (2005). Birds of a Feather Flying Together. ASEP Public Forum. [Online]. http://thor.css.edu/dcforum/DCForumID44/163.html#37