The Cost of Commercializing Sports
Nutrition
Tommy
Boone, PhD, MPH, FASEP, EPC
Professor
and Chair
Director,
Exercise Physiology Laboratories
The
College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN 55811
It is fundamentally crazy to think that it is okay to
look the other way.
I
HAVE HEARD that some professionals have made a mess of things in their work. Some are looting their employees. Others are pirating downloading music from
the internet. Still others plagiarize
data from the manuscripts of colleagues.
But there is more to it than that, and the awesome thing is – no gives a
damn! Think about it. Whether it is a corked bat, steroids, or
academic fraud, it is wrong to look the other way. Strangely enough, there has not been very
much serious exercise physiology-scientific research on these points. The failure to do so has tended to encourage
the use of sports supplements. This
essay will examine the commercialization of sports nutrition and implications
related to exercise physiology.
For
decades exercise physiologists have been the professionals who taught lectures
on sound nutritional practice for athletes.
No one questioned the exercise physiologist's role in the sports
nutrition course. After all, other professionals recognized doctorate prepared exercise
physiologists as credible and ethical thinking college teachers. This thinking is not as obvious today as it
once was. Now, it seems that essentially
every exercise physiologist with a sports nutrition interest is an expert in
sports nutrition supplements and/or a consultant for the industry, which raises
the questions:
- Why is the exercise physiology community so
comfortable with the idea that it is okay to promote the sports supplement
industry?
- Why hasn't the commercialization of medicine and
prescription drugs served to alert exercise physiologists to the inherit
problem with the medical profession?
The
21st century view that it is "my right" to make a strong consulting connection
with the sports supplement industry is not limited to just the exercise
physiology profession. Professionals
from many academic areas are also consultants in their areas of expertise. From medical doctors to university faculty
members, becoming a consultant is a big deal [1]. Companies fund thousands of
research projects with billion's of dollars every year to academic
institutions. No one knows exactly how many exercise physiology laboratories are
set up to evaluate sports nutrition products.
No one knows how many students are aware that the laboratory equipment they
use is paid for by the sports supplement companies! Here again, it seems surprising that no one
is interested in questioning the recent trends of the supplement industry in
supporting academic research. It seems
more than reasonable that this industry is using academic sports nutrition
consultants and their graduate students to promote supplement products.
In
fact, imagine the future and try to predict how the world of athletics will
change over the next century. Think
about junior high and high school athletes as well as college athletes. Who is looking out for them? What about the side effects of unproved
substances? Is ethical thinking
dead? Who is monitoring the relationship
between the supplement industry and academia?
Who are the sports supplement consultants? Where do they present their research
findings? Without answers to these
questions, the greatest threat to the athlete's health and the moral aspects of
athletics is continuation of the same common practice with havoc and
potentially destructive end-results.
For
some exercise physiologists, the relationship between sports nutritionists and
supplement companies is a conflict of interest if certain restraints and/or
conditions are not met. Seldom are the
conditions met, and the idea of limitations on college faculty, especially
those who teach sports nutrition, does not exist. In short, any exercise physiologist who wants
to establish a relationship with a sports supplement company and/or product can
do so and act as a sponsor and no one will question the arrangement. No one is designated to evaluate the
translation of research findings in sports nutrition courses. And, surprisingly, hardly any exercise
physiologists seem to be concerned about the role of sports nutritionists in promoting
supplements in athletics and the public sector.
Again,
sports nutrition today is not what it was decades ago. It is changing rapidly, and it is directly
related to the idea of the sports supplement industry bringing new
"legal" supplements to athletes.
Many of these supplements do not work and, frankly, most have not been
rigorously research within the industry itself.
Instead, leading academics are promoting products by infusing the
message of the industry in with otherwise everyday sports nutrition concepts
and ideas. It is not just an uneasy
alliance – sports nutritionists/exercise physiologists and sports supplement
industry – it has altered the direction and purpose of the sports nutrition
course. Exercise physiologists should
rethink their participation in industry-funded supplement research as have
clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry [2]. Several important reasons include the
following:
- There are important ethical issues to think
about, especially when researchers are concerned about consulting fees
that they overlook the exercise physiology profession.
- The welfare of the athletes is at stake. The idea that "winning at all
costs" is the right way to think is highly questionable.
- There are also questions about the role of
industry itself in managing and/or influencing the faculty member's work
and research findings.
- College teachers are not in a good position to
stop the industry from putting its own spin on the data to favor a
product. This creates unique
ethical considerations.
- No one knows how many research findings are
never published because the findings did not favor the industry. And, there is some evidence that the
quality of the findings is likely to be influenced by the investigator's
personal financial relationship with industry sponsors [3].
Although
academic research institutions have conflict of interest policies [4],
researchers often find ways to get around the policies. Making matters worse, the policies are not
necessarily consistent from one institution to the next [5]. Also, there is always the concern that many
researchers cannot accurately describe the conflict-of-interest policies. Why, because many researchers either do not
care about the policies or they believe the policies do not apply to them. They believe that consulting is their right
and, after all, they have the doctorate degree!
Being all-powerful, they believe the problem lies in the policies not in
their personal and/or financial interest in the success of their research.
Sports
nutrition consultants are having an influence on athletics. Unless something changes, all athletes of the
future are likely to believe that they must consume supplements and/or drugs to
be successful.
Is
it possible that some researchers do not get that what they are doing is full
of ethical pitfalls? Similarly, is it
possible that the sports supplement industry relationship poses a risk to
students, athletes, and the public? The
short answer to both questions is YES.
The risk to scientific integrity is 100% real. Moreover, although less obvious, there is the
negative influence on shaping the direction of the profession of exercise
physiology. When exercise physiologists do not act ethically due to a personal
financial relationship with the supplement industry, they represent a threat to
the integrity of the profession. This
point is highlighted by the ASEP Code of Ethics [6], which addresses the major
problems of unprofessional behavior.
Other significant problems bear directly on the physical danger for the
athletes.
Laure
and Binsinger [7] points out that "…there may be damage to the athlete's
health linked to the nature of the substances taken, the doses, the methods of
administration or even the combination of products…." There is also the concern of using
supplements and/or drugs to improve in athletic performance rather than by
training alone. Interestingly, the
argument used by those who push performance-enhancing substances is essentially
the same as the sports nutrition instructor: "perform better, develop
bigger muscles, and ran faster." In
other words, athletes do not have to train or learn the importance of
self-discipline, or any of the usual adaptations to sports training. Forget about lifting weights just take a pill
or a drug! Or, an athlete could be
injected with the DNA of an animal (or, perhaps, another stronger human being),
which begs the question:
Is
genetic engineering really the ethical way to become an excellent sprinter?
Athletes,
coaches, trainers, physicians, parents, sports nutritionists, and exercise
physiologists should remember that genetic enhancement (i.e., gene doping) is
illegal. The idea that genetic therapy
for athletes should be made legal makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Genetic engineering to win a sprint contest
is simply the failure to think straight. Aside from the ethical issues, there are health implications. Fortunately,
Austin [8], a professor at the University
of Texas, understands the
problem: "It is a terrible
situation. Legalizing genetic
modification would lead to 'anarchy.'
Inevitably it's going to turn [sports] into a kind of circus – a freak
show." This is an excellent point
of view even though there is the following argument [9]: "Once it becomes safe and easy to do
genetic enhancement a large fraction of the population will choose to
genetically engineer their bodies to improve their looks, strength, resistance
to infections, and a great many other qualities."
The
topic "genetically modified athletes" raises the following question: "When will sports nutritionists buy
stock in gene doping companies?"
And, when they do, will they then start teaching that it is the
athlete's choice if he or she should want to genetically modify his or her
physical performance? Perhaps, even more
to the point, will the sports nutritionists/exercise physiologist argue in
class before students that it is inevitable and impossible to avoid as has been
the case with sports supplements and/or drugs?
Of course, the answer is all too obvious, isn't it? If there is a buck to be made, the so-called
professional educator will promote the idea and/or product. Sadly, this point is all too self-evident.
This
is especially the case with the sports supplement creatine monohydrate with $50
million in annual sales in 1996 [10] to over $400 million during 2001
[11]. Creatine supplementation (CrS) is
an excellent example of the cost of commercialization of sports nutrition. It is one of the most used
performance-enhancing supplements to improve performance involving short
periods of powerful activity [12].
Unfortunately, creatine and other performance-enhancing substances have
come to occupy a prominent place in athletics.
Why the voluminous and ever-growing literature on sports supplements and
athletic performance? First, athletics
is a major part of the American culture.
Second, athletics is driven by competition and the desire to win. Third, often individuals in and out of
athletics define themselves by their association with or support of different athletic
teams. These reasons and more coalesce
around the proposition winning at all costs is the only worthy reason for
participating in athletics. The key
element in this thinking is that winning is worth the risks, even the risk of
dying or damage to the body if it means winning.
Athletics
will start to die a slow death, as society becomes more informed and start
thinking for themselves. Parents will
become increasingly concerned about their children as sports participation
becomes increasingly irrelevant.
Sports
nutritionists, trainers, and strength and conditioning coaches are big time
players in this new thinking, called 21st century sports nutrition. And, of course, the strategic players,
resource personnel, and transforming agents of the new sports nutrition are
"sports nutritionists." The
shift from sound nutrition to sports supplements, the increased reliance on
sports supplements, and the creation of pseudo-science that promotes the use of
the performance-enhancers is driven by interconnected exercise physiology
consultants and the proliferation of the supplement industry. This shift is not the historical equivalent
of the transition from bad to good. What
has changed is not good and, in fact, much of it is unethical and at odds with
what is good in athletics. The most
striking of this point is the discussion about gene doping and the growing
suggestion that it should be legal. Miah
[13], for example, states that it "…is preferable to having athletes
genetically modify themselves behind closed doors, which seems inevitable….Gene
doping is inevitable and impossible to avoid…."
This
kind of thinking comes across as blurring boundaries between athletics and
industries, between athletes and consultants, even between parents and
children; a new of viewing sports competition.
Here again, if winning is the only reason to participate in sports, then
athletes are expendable. Only those with
the ability to perform will perform. Or,
if it becomes acceptable for athletes to modify themselves, humankind itself
stands to change. Sports then is no
longer what it was or believed to be.
Prompted by the inevitable, as Miah suggests, genetic enhancement will
be an open and commonplace technology.
Athletes of all ages will no longer be condemned for their
cheating! This will be a gigantic leap
backward with enormous implications for the public and private sectors as well
as the healthcare professions. In other
words, since it is inevitable that teenagers are not interested in driving the
speed limit, and since it is impossible to stop them from speeding, their
behavior should be legalized. After all,
breaking the law could make them better drivers, more capable and better
teenagers in getting to and from work.
Thus, it would be wrong not to pursue the legalization of 60 miles/hr in
a 30 miles/hr driving zone.
Miah
and others like him are not likely to be deterred by the simple parallel in
thinking. But, according to Beitler
[14], Miah definitely believes that genetic modification "could be very
positive for sport." Frankly, that
is a serious and gigantic leap of how sports should be done. What has changed is not the sport per se, but
the activities of humankind that can no longer distinguish good common sense
from the equivalent of misguided thinking.
Honestly, what will some people do as a consequence of their drive and
ambition? This notion of accepting
genetically modified athletes is profoundly chaotic and inherited problematic. Exercise physiologists, in particular,
especially those who have an interest in sports nutrition must know that their
work to teach sound nutrition has entered an era in which the fundamental
assumptions of character development and integrity are no longer valued. Rather, what is important, it seems according
to Beitler and Miah centers directly on global enjoyment and future success in
athletics. For example, the following
remarks appear in the piece by Beitler [14]:
|
"The
idea of a naturally perfect athlete is romantic nonsense. An athlete achieves
what he or she achieves through all sorts of means -- technology,
sponsorship, support and so on. Utilizing genetic modification is merely a
continuation of the way sport works." Dr. Norman Fost, who directs the
medical ethics program at the University of Wisconsin, told Bill Stiegerwald
of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that "the problem with doping in sports
is that it is illegal... it seems to me that they (steroids) are enhancing
(baseball). I don't know if Barry
Bonds is a steroid user. But if he is,
he's the biggest draw in all of sports today.
How is that ruining the game?"
When asked if drug use undermines fair competition and the spirit of
sport, Fost said, "Absolutely not.
What destroys fair competition is unequal access to things that affect
performance."
|
This
kind of thinking is profoundly disturbing since it argues for a course of
unending use of performance-enhancing substances, gene doping, and anything
else that destroys fair competition.
This is not just mind-boggling.
It is evidence of the desire to accept the accelerated evolution of
performance-enhancers in athletics, and it promises to be quantum jump in the
wrong direction. The key shortcoming of
this disastrous thinking is the oft-quoted remark that sports are not what they
used to be. Even if Barry Bonds is
"…the biggest draw in all of sports…" – if he is using steroids, his
behavior undermines fair play. What
destroys fair competition is unethical behavior! Winning is only one dimension of
participation in sports. Learning to
lose gracefully is not merely a matter of being courteous; it is the beginning
in taking responsibility – as athletes must do – for the competitive nature of
sports and the complex multifaceted systems that make the connection between
performance and humanity.
Contrary
to the remark [14] by Fost (i.e., "the problem with doping in sports is
that it is illegal…") that argues for the right of athletes to use
steroids and all other "things" to level the playing field, such
thinking is dangerous in that it encourages the use of "any and
everything" to win. At the root of
this problem is the failed rhetoric that all the athletes are doing it along
with the unraveling of moral character. When
does it become too much? When is it
wrong for cheating to take place and under what circumstances?
What
do you think? Have you considered what
it means that every child will be on sports supplements by age 12? Is it the right thing to do? Ultimately, everything is about winning,
status, and money, right? Perhaps, this
new way of thinking or doctrine put forth by sports nutrition consultants needs
dismantling. At the very least, what
about surveillance? The issue is not
complicated. Should trainers, sports
nutritionists, and others encourage athletes to ingest performance-enhancers? The most compelling response is obvious or,
at least, it should be. The fact that
enhancers encourage the idea that it is okay to disarm opponents by cheating is
unacceptable view of athletics. Those
who do not get this point may never get it, yet their failure to do so does not
justify the use of enhancers. The time
has come for concerted action to establish an anti-cheating mentality to ban
the threat and use of enhancers by declaring them a crime against humanity and
athletics.
Exercise
physiologists, listen up! The costs of
commercializing sports nutrition could include doing the same with other
exercise physiology courses. The
profession of exercise physiology is at a point in history that requires
leadership. Exercise physiology needs to
be guided by professionals with hope and action for a better future for
athletes. Why not be a pioneer in
shaping how your colleagues think about the use of supplements, drugs, and
genetic manipulation? This can be
achieved by publishing your thoughts in the first-ever "professional
journal of exercise physiology." As
founder and editor of the Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline, I
will work with you as though we were a special task force to establish the
right way to think about athletics. Nothing
is hopeless and nothing is a given. Sports
nutrition, athletics, and exercise physiology, as fields of mental battle, all
is needed is straight thinking, leadership, and a declaration that "enough
is enough." You can make a
difference in the life of a young athlete who otherwise is being encouraged to
endorse the direction of supplements and drug usage. Why not shout to the top of your lungs that
exercise physiologists have had it with the consultants? Why not stand on the roof tops and throw your
dirty jogging shoes at them? Do what you
have to, but do get their attention.
In
considering the uncertain relationship between supplement CEOs and exercise
physiologists, the profession finds itself encountered in a series of
perplexing questions. One in particular
is: Can exercise physiology as
established by the ASEP leaders resist the corrosive effects of
performance-enhancing substances?
Why
is this important? The cost of
commercialization is too high. The very
fact that student athletes are encouraged to cheat at such a young age seldom
sets a good example for later life. If
it was okay then, why not now and, therefore, it is conceivable that a person
can learn to justified any behavior is he or she stands to gain from it. This is a tremendous cost in gross behavior
that is symptomatic across many fundamental areas of life. From the way an athlete learns to think when
competing to how business deals are handled later in life, embodied in the
process is that it is okay to cheat to win.
Detached from what is right, everything becomes a win-at-all-cost way of
thinking. Everything becomes legitimate when
everywhere there is the shift from rational thinking to egoistic security. In the end, the biggest cost is the failure
to learn how to win and how to lose and why both are important to
understanding, living, and surviving the battlefields of life. This thinking is not only a necessary
component of the ethical role of exercise physiologists, it is also fundamental
to the pressing challenges in caring for the needs of athletes and
competitiveness in a global age.
The culture of
cheating is real. Everyone is doing it,
thus it must be normal – right? Everyone
wants to be on top. And, with being on
top, there is fame, power, and glory.
That is why "…two players on the Eleanor Roosevelt boys' basketball
team asked their coach to provide them with a drink containing the
muscle-building supplement creatine before a playoff game…." [15]. What
the students did not know was how sick they would get afterward consuming the
drink. When such behavior as
"everybody is using supplements nowadays" and "everybody wants
to get bigger and everybody wants to get faster" drives athletes to take
Met-Rx's protein powder and other combinations of supplements, it should be a
growing concern within the exercise physiology community. Professionalism cannot be won with money from
the supplement industry. This is so
logical and predictable. The bottom line
is simple: When a supplement of any kind, legal or illegal, is used to enhance
performance, it is not only unethical but unsafe with certain health risks to
athletes. And, if that itself is not
sufficient to argue against the use of supplements, just imagine how ridiculous
the same thinking is when carried over into cheerleaders who were
"…encouraged to use creatine…." [16].
Perhaps,
the most exercise physiologists can do is talk about the cost of
commercializing sports supplements and talk about the health and character
issues that are more important than developing muscle mass, increasing strengtsh,
and building stamina. When people think
otherwise, they are part of the problems.
In particular, parents should help their children avoid the use of performance-enhancing
drugs and supplements by talking about the risks they take in using them. As an example, androstenedione (e.g., andro)
and dehydroepiandrosterone (also know as DHEA) "…may lead to dangerous
side effects like testicular cancer, infertility, stroke, and an increased risk
of heart disease…along with breast development and shrinking of testicles in
guys…." [17]. Creatine can have side effects that include "…stomach
pain, nausea, diarrhea, and muscle cramps.
High doses of creatine may be associated with kidney, liver or heart
problems…." [18]. These concerns are very real. Drugs and supplements can cause serious harm
that takes from the positive developmental experiences athletes can learn
through sports and athletic competition.
Consumer
Report® is published by Consumers Union, an independent nonprofit testing and
information-gathering organization, serving only to protect the consumer. In 2001, Consumer Reports® issued a Press
Release [19] saying among other things: "…athletes…should not take sports
supplements." Yet, according to
Blue Cross / Blue Shield, an organization committed to the health of America's
young people, the best estimate is that 1.1 million young people between the
ages 12 and 17 have taken potentially harmful performance-enhancing supplements
and drugs [20]. Allan Korn, chief medical
officer of BCBSA, said that "…74% of the people surveyed agree that
[performance-enhancing supplements and drugs] pose a significant public health
problem." Whether it is the CEO of
a sport supplement company or an exercise physiologist who is a paid consultant
for a supplement company, as long as they promote supplements to enhance
performance, they are not to be trusted.
Whatever
happened to commitment, dedication, and hard work? Whatever happened to sports nutritionists who
understood that athletic performance depends largely on eating the right
foods? In fact, this is exactly what
Steen [21] said, "…athletes should obtain adequate energy and nutrients
from a diet that emphasizes complex carbohydrates and moderate amounts of
protein and fat to support growth and physical activity." And yet, there is the problem of quackery [4,
22] and fraudulent promoters who trick athletes and others into buying their
products. Exercise physiologists should teach that performance-enhancing
supplements and drugs have unknown risks.
They should tell coaches, athletes, trainers, and anyone who is willing
to listen that supplements are not regulated for safety, potency, purity, or
efficacy. Parents need to know that
their children are gambling with their future health, which begs the
question: "Why aren't coaches telling
their athletes that if they use supplements or drugs, then they don't
play." Coaches have the
responsibility to know what their athletes are putting into their bodies. And, while coaches are responsible for
teaching the importance of winning, they must also teach what is learned in
losing.
Honor
and ethics are more important and essential to developing good character and
true winning practices.
Perhaps,
the only question remaining is: Where can exercise physiologists go from
here? At present, it is clear that the
relationship between sports nutritionists and sports supplements is woven
deeply in the fabric of exercise physiology.
The widespread acceptance of supplement industry money and support must
be documented and addressed. Sports nutritionists, as exercise physiologists
first, must get back to the science of nutrition and athletics. Also, the commitment to sports training and
athletic performance must not be driven by the problematic thinking that
underpins genetic engineering. This
threat to the health of athletes concerns the moral character of exercise
physiologists and all others who do not want to encourage the idea of getting
"something for nothing" is a good thing. Athletics is not just about winning and,
frankly, such thinking is self-deception.
Such behavior is not appropriate for developing and maintaining public
trust in the exercise physiology profession.
These are just some of the challenges that exercise physiologists must
surely meet if the profession is to grow and establish itself as a credible
healthcare profession. Exercise
physiologists must engage in strategic foresight in order to acquire knowledge
and insight about their profession and who they are as healthcare
practitioners.
References
- Blumenthal, D. Causino, N.
Campbell, E., and Louis, K.S. (1996). Relationships between
Academic Institutions and Industry in the Life Sciences – An Industry
Survey. The New England Journal of
Medicine. 334:6:368-374.
- Bodenheimer, T. (2000). Uneasy Alliance – Clinical Investigators and
the Pharmaceutical Industry. The New England
Journal of Medicine. 342:20:1539-1544.
- Boyd, E. and Bero, L. (2000). Assessing Faculty
Financial Relationships with Industry: A Case Study. Journal of American
Medical Association. 284:2209-2214.
- Boone, T. (2006). Is Sports Nutrition for Sale? Nova Science
Publishing.
- Boyd, E.A., Cho, M.K., and Bero, L.A. (2003).
Financial Conflict-of-Interest Policies in Clinical Research: Issues for
Clinical Investigators. Academic Medicine. 78:8:769-774.
- American Society of Exercise Physiologists.
(2007). Code of Ethics. [Online]. http://www.asep.org/ethics
- Laure, P. and Binsinger, C. (2005). Adolescent Athletes and the
Demand and Supply of Drugs to Improve Their Performance. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine.
4:272-277.
- Lamb, G.M.
(2004). Will Gene-Altered Athletes Kill Sport? The Christian Science
Monitor. Csmonitor.com/ [Online]. http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0823/p12s01-stgn.html
- FuturePundit.
(2004). Genetically Enhanced Athletes In 2008 Olympics? [Online]. http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002307.html
- Bamberger, M. (1998). The Magic Potion. Sports
Illustrated. 88:58-61.
- Metzl, J.D., Small, E., Levine, S.R., and
Gershel, J.C. (2001). Creatine Use Among Young Athletes. Pediatrics.
108:421-425.
- Bird, S.P. (2003). Creatine Supplementation and
Exercise Performance: A Brief Review. Journal of Sports Science and
Medicine. 2:123-132.
- Miah, A. (2004). Genetically Modified Athletes
in Athens?
Bring Them On. The Observer. [Online]. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport/story/0,6903,1273665,00.html
- Beitler, S. (2004). Gene Doping: Sports at the
Cellular Level. StopTheDrugWar.Com/ [Online]. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/363/genes.shtml
- Barr, J. (2005). High Schoolers' Supplement Use
Is A Growing Concern. Washingtonpost.com/ [Online].
http://www.washingtonpost.com
- Longman, J. (2001). Sports of The Times:
Supplements Deserve Scrutiny. The New York Times. [Online].
http://query.nytimes.com/
- Gould, J. (2005). Medical Conditions. University
Hospitals. [Online].
http://www.uhhospitals.org/tabid/383/newsid/21005/Default.aspx
- MayoClinic.com. (2007). Performance-Enhancing
Drugs and Your Teen Athlete. [Online]. http://www.myoclinic.com/
- Consumers Reports®. (2001). Consumer Reports
Advises: Avoid Sports Supplements – Evidence for Effectiveness is Sketchy;
Safety Concerns are Many. [Online].
http://www.consumersunion.org/products/sportsny501.htm
- Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. (2003).
Blue Cross / Blue Shield Says 1.1 Million Teens Have Used Performance
Enhancing Sports Supplements and Drugs. Dietary Supplement Quality
Initiative. [Online].
http://www.supplementquality.com/news/ephedra_teens_BCBS.html
- Steen, S.N. (2001). Performance Issues for
Parents: How to Fuel Active Kids. ACSM Fit Society Page. [Online].
http://www.acsm.org/
- Boone, T. (2002). Exercise Physiology Quackery
and Consumer Fraud. Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline. 5:5
[Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/ExercisePhysiologyQuackery.html
Copyright
©1997-2007
American Society of Exercise Physiologists All Rights
Reserved.