Original Thinking by the ASEP
Founders
Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, FASEP, EPC
Founder, ASEP
Professor and Chair
Director, Exercise Physiology Laboratories
The College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN 55811
Robert Robergs, PhD, FASEP, EPC
Founder, ASEP
Professor of Exercise Physiology
Director, Exercise Physiology Laboratories
The University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM
“Until you attempt the impossible,
until you’re willing to walk on the water, you’re not walking the path
of faith.” -- Robert H. Schuller
Introduction
In this article you will find an attempt
to state in a clear and straightforward manner a view of the insights first
put forward by the founders of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists
(ASEP). Our intention is to argue for certain independence in the
actions of the founders in midst of challenging, if not confusing array
of political views. We trust that if you are incline to agree with
our sense of how an organization should be developed, you will get involved
in helping with the emerging profession of exercise physiology through
the ASEP organization.
The Original Thinking
After careful reflection regarding the
role of sports medicine in the development of exercise physiology, it was
clear that organizations are developed for different reasons. The
ASEP organization was created as “the” professional organization of exercise
physiologists. From the beginning, we were interested in helping
our students level the playing field with other healthcare professionals.
In terms of academics, public opinion, and a variety of other factors that
have for decades influenced our students’ financial stability and respect,
our initial discussion was devoted to the practice of exercise physiology.
This raised questions regarding “what is exercise physiology” and “who
is an exercise physiologist”. We found the sports medicine answer
to each question was inadequate, which caused us to think about a number
of questions.
To be a serious force in the development
of exercise physiology as a profession, there is nothing more important
than staying true to the original ASEP vision [1]. Hence, from the
founders’ perspective, it is right, if not a professional mandate; to do
what is necessary to ensure that the ASEP paradigm model is accepted.
We understand the challenges, and we expect others to engage in critical
reflection on behalf of our students. The development of exercise
physiology within the ASEP views and beliefs favor new career opportunities,
increased self-esteem, credibility, and accountability. It would
be a major mistake and a lack of conviction to not embrace the original
claims and pronouncements of ASEP.
Because the original thinking of exercise
physiology as “exercise scientists” is seriously problematic, because little
professional development and study occurred across several decades to help
correct the lack of leadership within the emerging profession of exercise
physiology, and because students have suffered in career opportunities
(often indirectly, at the hands of their professors), the original thinking
has failed to constitute a viable means to ensure the future of exercise
physiology. It is fair to suggest, therefore, that if exercise physiology
is to grow into its own, an effort by those who understand and can articulate
the concerns must be supported and sustained with both perseverance and
determination to the ASEP agenda.
The Morally Right Action
Because of the deliberate and misguided
actions of others to keep exercise physiology from involving as a profession
(i.e., to keep it as a technician or fitness oriented field), students
who graduate with degrees in kinesiology, exercise science, or human performance
do so without realizing that their academic major does not allow them the
title, Exercise Physiologist. Only later, after graduation do they
come to understand the moral incorrectness of implicit statements by their
professors that have little to no merit and only serves to benefit the
doctorate prepared university teachers. To say that “you” will be
an exercise physiologist when you graduate with an exercise science degree
is not just irrational, it is unethical. If anyone has doubts about
this particular point (student or teacher), ask yourself the question:
“Can a student become a nurse by graduating from an academic program other
than nursing?” How about physical therapy or occupational therapy?
Can an individual, regardless of having taken law courses, define him-
or herself upon graduation as a lawyer if he or she did not graduate from
a law school? Of course the answer the questions is “no” and everyone
in their right mind understands this point.
However, the oddity is that many academic
exercise physiologists continue to deny the principle of moral rightness.
In fact, the equivalent in counter-productive thinking is the belief that
the fitness profession is an exercise physiologist. Any person who
embraces this thinking suffers from the lack of practical rationality.
To know the difference is to understand the good things ASEP is doing to
engage new thinking, new actions, and the justification for the “new” 21st
century exercise physiology. Here, the attractiveness of the ASEP
vision is the distinction between the “look-alike” exercise physiologists
and the “real” exercise physiologists. It not a matter of just morally
thinking right, but also common sense thinking that university professors
must mature beyond yesterday’s beliefs. In other words, the lack
of professional distinction between fitness professionals (i.e., personal
trainers or otherwise) and exercise physiologists is a mistake.
Of course, no one ever said it would be
easy to create a national organization. The founders know for sure
that it hasn’t been easy, but nonetheless worth every step in the right
direction. At the present time, given the restructure of the ASEP
Board of Directors, it is even more obvious that the continued development
of a professional organization requires day-to-day decisions that link
directly with the original intent of founding ASEP. The challenge
is of course is to never give up. The key is passion and the understanding
that the founders originated the intent to move exercise physiology into
the 21st century. Understanding these points, we appeal to your intuitions
about the difficulties in handling controversial and complex problems.
There is also the expected understanding that replacement of old paradigms
by new paradigms require a period of mental and/or emotional difficulty
and suffering. No organization is completely removed from serious
questions and issues that must be addressed. That is the absolute
responsibility of the founders to the members of the organization.
In other words, doing what is morally right is not a strategy per se but
a factually true and a basic good for all exercise physiologists.
It is possible that a certain number of exercise physiologists will not
adapt to the new paradigm in spite of the fact that it’s morally right.
This is a problem, and it is a force to deal with.
The Key Ingredient
Those who believe in ASEP are neither
alone nor work alone. Many work in the college and/or university
system, others work in the fitness and/or cardiac rehabilitation settings,
still others work in small fitness corporations and/or professional settings
or departments. There is value in knowing that we have overcome several
major problems (such as the lack of accreditation, board certification,
and standards of practice) in a very short period of time. What ASEP
has done is to live up to its original intent. The work is worth
the time and dedication on behalf of our students and the emerging profession
of exercise physiology. It is hard not to get this point or to understand
it, although only a relatively few exercise physiologists appear to understand
the magnitude of the results. Maybe this is part of the beginning
that grants to all ASEP members the right to the truth that they are professionals,
that they deserve the acceptance by other healthcare professionals, and
that they are no longer muddling along with undeveloped strategies for
success.
The key to this distinction is that the
ASEP organization has the right to pursue professionalism, the right to
understand the truth about professional development, and the right to make
mistakes (e.g., one such scenario is the recent “restructure of the ASEP
Board of Directors). What is clear on behalf of the ASEP membership
is that the ASEP vision drives the founding fathers. They are committed
to ASEP even when hard decisions get between friends and the reality of
ASEP. Interestingly, many examples of this kind of thinking
exist throughout the business community and non-profit organizations.
To think or to suggest that recent decisions by the founders is self-deception
or a power statement of some sort is a failure in understanding the founders’
responsibility to the stockholders. In short, there is simply no
way to elevate exercise physiology to a healthcare profession without dedicating
the organization to board members who understand and live for absolute
support of the ASEP vision as originally conceived by the founders.
To think or to act otherwise doesn’t make sense.
“You have to believe you can do
it.” – from the mouth of every Coach!
While it is not always an easy task by any
means, it is important to understand that critics of the ASEP organization
are not interested in seeing the organization improve. When the chance
arises, they always share negative information about the leadership.
Their negative judgments and predictions about the ASEP leadership have
gotten old to the founders, but they continue anyway. Why?
Because they believe that if they take the aggressive position, the offense,
they won’t be criticized for their lack of responsibility to the organization.
By criticizing the founders by telling you that ASEP can’t succeed or you
lack the ability to make it happen, they think they are improving their
status. In fact, all they have done is strengthen our resolve.
The critics have only helped the founders to continue thinking differently
from the sports medicine crowd.
The Social Dividends
The public sector benefits from members
of any organization that rises to the occasion of excellence in the delivery
of its services. Exercise physiologists are no different. Each
of us is well advised to uphold his or her part in the goodness of exercise
physiology. We are collectively the reflection if not the confirmation
that reasonably good things can result from the application of exercise
physiology concepts and ideas. If we freely choose to believe this,
then we must make the commitment to professional freedom and social rewards.
The overall result is therefore a refraining of how we look at exercise
physiology. For certain, it is not exercise science! This is
itself a significant beginning.
The good of ASEP, then, is the drive to
realize its vision on behalf of its stockholders. To treat all exercise
physiologists with respect and dignity is a goal worthy of effort and,
however impossible, upholds the ASEP struggle to help all exercise physiologists
endure and survive. This means that all exercise physiologists deserve
their own “certification” and that they are worthy of recognized professionalism.
To ensure that the ASEP reality is heard and perceived correctly, it is
not necessary to be ugly to others. And, yet it is critical that
other non-ASEP exercise physiologists demonstrate the respect and dignity
for ASEP exercise physiologists.
One might consider objecting to my basic
analysis thus for revealed, but it is clear that those who object to ASEP
often do so wanting control of it. For various reasons, the displeasure
in identifying unexpected events is balanced against the pleasure of anticipation.
That is, although “…my intentions might appear honorable…” the illusion
itself is hopefully sufficient to gain an advantage. Sometimes the
gain in power is little more than the opportunity to voice and get accepted
one’s beliefs. On the other hand, change is instrumental to obtaining
a result intended to benefit “said” individual. In the latter case,
the anticipated pleasure is consistent with the notion of who is the anticipated
winner. In the end, it lacks the pleasure of enabling others.
Example of Changed Thinking
Within the ASEP organization, members
like Matt Wattles and Steve Jungbauer understand the pain of the ever-present
history of sports medicine. They feel its presence daily. Yet,
they refuse to be controlled by it or allow for their daily work to be
hampered by the sense of eternal lack of direction and/or specificity.
For sake of brevity, there are very little serious career opportunities
within the floating notion that sports medicine is “the” way. This
is not the case with the ASEP organization. The lesson to be learned
is that every emerging profession requires its own professional organization.
This is the changed thinking that has engaged the support of friends and
others to join forces with certain strategies for the pursuit of a fixed
“professional title” and an overriding belief in exercise physiology.
The realization, for example, that exercise
physiology is a healthcare profession has helped to formulate a continuous
and sustained commitment to discern its purpose. It follows that
the primary obstacle is past thinking that encourages an unchanging way
of thinking. It seems therefore that many academic exercise physiologists
are afraid to abandon past thinking. All exercise physiologists should
care deeply about this conflict. The shortcomings of our failure
to provide the academics for positive growth and the equivalent professional
experiences for our students are problematic. That is, deceiving
students with intentional failure to not respect their dignity is an act
of purposeful harm that is not just unjustified but a neglect of major
proportions.
In other words, it is time to understand
the meaning in “Who did what, and for what reason?” If academic exercise
physiologists teach their students that the ASEP organization is not “the”
professional organization of exercise physiologists, and the students actually
spread negative thinking about the organization, the students become agents
and victims of this unchanged thinking. In addition, the academic
exercise physiologists bear significant responsibility because they taught
the students what to think. Students would not have failed to think
correctly had the professors not planted the wrong information in their
heads. The villain that threatens the new set of ideas about what
is exercise physiology and who is an exercise physiologist is the academic
professor kidnapped by unchanged thinking.
Irrational Thinking
It seems clear that it would be irrational
to continue thinking as exercise physiologists have done for decades.
It is also a failure in responsibility that has drastically isolated exercise
physiologists from their distinction as evolving healthcare professionals.
Yet sometimes it seems that this is exactly the inadequate thinking of
many academic exercise physiologists. Here, the ends (that is, the
PhDs after years of study) do not justify the means (that is, the failure
to move successfully into the 21st century view of exercise physiology).
There are, indeed, moral issues here that regardless of how comfortable
university professors might be, the failure to disclose the inadequacy
of continuing with past thinking is very likely a legal irresponsible.
The rational thing to do is not to continue
holding the students hostage to outdated thinking, but to intentionally
do what is right on behalf of all students and their interest in exercise
physiology. That is, it is no longer an unintentional problem by
a misinformed faculty. The students’ disappointment is not an accident.
Rather, too many actions by university teachers held captive by groupthink
have kept exercise physiology linked to its past way of thinking.
This does not set well for those of us who understand that change is constant,
and that each of us is responsible for supporting new ideas and possibilities
for exercise physiology students. Hence, the question is “What are
the consequences for the lack of action by university teachers?”
The most obvious problems are the break down in career options, respect,
and professional status. The “old boy” system, which is founded in
sports medicine, provides increasing power for professors, but fails to
nurture and support students.
By accepting responsibility for the irrational
thinking, professors can help by thinking of exercise physiology as a profession.
They can get involved in ASEP to help with accreditation [2] and board
certification [3]. Both will help to raise the educational standards
for entry-level practice. They also need to support the non-doctorate
prepared exercise physiologists in their pursuit of independent work.
None of this is a “quick-fix” to the 21st century commitment to professionalism.
And, all of this might sound impossible in today’s sports medicine back
yard. But, with the infrastructure in place by the ASEP founders,
the process of overcoming labels typically associated with exercise physiology
makes the practitioners stronger.
The Right Thing to Do
The right thing to do for students is
to respect them. The teacher’s responsibility to his or her students
is to help them compete successfully for jobs in the public sector.
Teachers ought to confirm their commitment to strategies that help students
become the very best that they can be. This is in part the reason
that parents send their children to college, and it is in accordance with
reasonable thinking and the pursuit of integrity within the teaching profession.
Hence, when we, as exercise physiologists, think critically and tackle
controversial issues to ensure fairness, the quality of what we do is increased
and recognized accordingly.
It follows from this view that failure
to pay special attention to students is a strict violation of the teachers’
obligation to question what isn’t good and what is good to fulfill the
students’ dreams and expectations. The teachers’ resolution of professional
thinking first should be based primarily on his or her professional training,
not on whether there is time to publish another research article.
While this distinction ought to be self-evident, it is not. Conflicts
of interest prevail throughout the teaching profession. The cause
for concern is more than self-evident or accidental. It is intentionally
a result of the failure of sports medicine to get past its groupthink mentality.
If this were not true, past communications between ASEP and sports medicine
would be resolved and that isn’t the case at all.
In fact, it is legitimate, correct, and
without bias to state that many professionals in the field are very “selfish”
in their motives to keep exercise physiology within the realm of sports
medicine. The universality of this point is all too obvious in the
United States. Is it possible to change? Yes, without question
exercise physiology is changing, but it is a specific kind of action that
is both declared and slow. The latter is the definition of organizational
development and maturity. Slow without exception is the beginning
steps of analytical and profound attention to ideas and concerns intended
to rethink and direct a discipline.
There is No Way to Avoid the Realization
Ethically speaking, there is no way university
professors can avoid doing what is right for their students. Because
professionalism is non-accidental, because responsibility is intentional,
and because college has a purpose, the college degree is an action of faith.
In other words, descriptively speaking, it is a reasonable pursuit of good
and financial stability. The argument for a college education is
sound and persuasive. Like anybody thinking about these matters,
the flaw is obvious only when alleged expectations are only talk.
This explains why the lack of direction in exercise physiology is clouded
by the lack of precision in degree title, professional title, and commonsense
thinking; all of which has resulted in conflicts of interest and obscure
notions of what is exercise physiology. Indeed, the lack of direction
by sports medicine minded individuals set the stage for much of the emotional
distress and financial problems that students face today.
The realization is that exercise physiology
is a profession that has emerged along with its standards of professional
practice. Today, more than ever before, the responsibilities of the
exercise physiologist have increased in accordance with the complexity
of the emerging profession as grown. Still, there is considerably
more that must be done to position exercise physiology alongside physical
therapy, occupational therapy, and nursing. Aside from its obvious
dependence on the scientific method that has resulted in its own specialized
body of knowledge that is learned in colleges and universities, students
are drawn to the field because of its public service activities.
Fortunately, with the founding of ASEP, a strong organization exists to
represent its members as professionals and, at the same time, hold members
accountable to a code of ethics.
By coming to together under the ASEP perspective,
there is an implied public service defined by standards that provide a
guide to what exercise physiologists may expect of one another. In
other words, there is no avoiding the realization that being ethical is
a benefit to the emerging profession. Truth and honesty are the underpinnings
of professional organizations. Anything less is a threat to the organization.
The latest episode regarding sports supplements represents the potential
for conflict of interest. Yet, the apparent worldwide acceptance
of drugs and supplements to enhance physical performance has not reached
the disagreement and/or argument level of analysis. There are only
a few exercise physiologists convinced that there is an ethical problem
encouraging athletes of all ages to use sports supplements.
Accountability
Exercise physiologists (and those who
call themselves exercise physiologists, such as personal trainers, kinesiologists,
and recent graduates with a degree in exercise science) are increasingly
recognized for their specialized body of knowledge. The non-exercise
physiologists, that is, those who are not board certified by the American
Society of Exercise Physiologists, don’t have enough knowledge or hands-on
skills to earn the public’s trust. This is not the case with board
certified exercise physiologists. The public expects the exercise
physiologist to be accountable. They are increasingly recognized
as professionals and, therefore, they are held accountable for their services.
This is exactly why ASEP has a code for exercise physiologists [4], and
this is exactly why every ASEP exercise physiologist must accept responsibility
for his or her actions.
As exercise physiology has developed into
its own as a healthcare profession, it is its body of knowledge that has
helped to advance the practitioners. The theoretical basis for the
“science” of athletics is well recognized. As more exercise physiologists
embrace ASEP, the body of knowledge identified as the “practice” of exercise
physiology will increase in depth and scope. The ASEP Standards of
Professional Practice [5] is the beginning of the new 21st century exercise
physiology. It is the model for all exercise physiologists, and it
is gradually being recognized and accepted by society. Few individuals
understand this point better than the founders of ASEP. It is likely
that this is the reason it is hard for some exercise physiologists who
are still under the influence of sports medicine to give in to their history
of feelings of wanting to keep it unchanged. Yet, this is exactly
what has to happen (and is happening). ASEP is making a difference
in the accountability of all exercise physiologists, and it is helping
to secure better jobs for all exercise physiologists.
The history of exercise physiology teaches
us that complicity between research and ethical accountability is nothing
new. Examples of research laboratories funded by companies often
transform the agenda of the staff and faculty. To suggest that this
isn’t the case is an obvious conflict in words and emotions. Unless
exercise physiologists adopt ethical approaches to handling the potential
benefits of sports nutrition courses, exercise physiology will fall into
the trap of being “extended” staff of the fitness industry. Experience
tells us that this cannot be good for the emerging profession of exercise
physiology. This is true with other professions, too. All professions
must be sensitive to the various threats to professionalism and professional
identity. Self-regulation and self-policing are critical to understanding
the professional development of exercise physiology.
The Entry-Level Exercise Physiologist
Historically, the only exercise physiologist
by title was the widely accepted belief that only doctorate prepared individuals
could use the title, Exercise Physiologist. While this belief is
still popular, it is changing. The granting of the “Exercise Physiologist”
title to baccalaureate degree exercise physiology programs is now recognized
by ASEP as the entry-level step to the practice of exercise physiology
[6]. It was based on the most basic fact that not all individuals
who attend college want or desire to get the doctorate degree. In
reality, the baccalaureate degree, when aligned with the ASEP scope of
practice, when accredited, and when subservient to the exercise physiology
code of ethics, is the only degree necessary to practice exercise physiology
independently.
The notion is changing that only doctorate
prepared individuals can be referred to as an exercise physiologist.
Similarly, whether a person is an exercise physiologist is no longer defined
just by research publications or an academic position. Increasingly,
there will be many new career opportunities for board certified, entry-level
exercise physiologists. In many cases, they will choose to create
their own healthcare businesses rather than work alongside other healthcare
professionals. They will view their work as a life-long opportunity
to help society achieve better health and wellness. Others will embrace
athletics with an independence from past thinking that represents a strong
professional and ethical identity with athletes. Until this latter
commitment is fully understood, future concerns will be plagued with serious
ethical, if not, legal implications regarding sports supplements.
To this end, exercise physiology must take
the lead in its professional contract with the public sector. That
is why the focus of ASEP is on its code of ethics. That is, the spirit
of professionalism is best understood and strengthened as exercise physiologists
work to safeguard and promote the public’s trust in their judgment and
recommendations. This proactive thinking is a responsible step to
securing a better future for our students. It is also living in the
moment with an understanding that change is inevitable. Thinking
as an exercise physiologist is the key to achieving big dreams. Believing
in yourself is critical to your success, both personally and professionally.
Identifying your strengths is important to own leadership and self-confidence
in securing change, in communicating the promise of something better, and
in helping others take the risk of sharing a sense of purpose. In
other words, the old expression had it right: We are what we think.
“We become what we think, what
we talk about, and what we do. If we think our work is for the right
reason, if we think that our actions will bring forth positive results,
and if we start living as professionals, we will become our vision.”
-- William T. Boone, Jr.
The Power of Professionalism
The term professionalism carries with
it a performance by a practitioner who gained his or her education from
an academic institution. The performance is expected to be of a high-level,
organized around legal and professional issues and concerns, thus reflecting
the professional development of the practitioner by having graduated from
an accredited institution. The practitioner has been taught the value
of ethical thinking and understands the public’s perception and meaning
of a true profession. In other words, the exercise physiologist is
a professional, not a technician; a person of professional influence.
The source of the power depends on the credibility of the professional
organization. This is why the Board of Directors must be skilled
at keeping the organization on its path to professionalism, and it is why
their dedication to the ASEP members is so important.
To influence the behavior of all exercise
physiologists, the founding members of ASEP exercises their expert power
to keep ASEP on track. It follows logically, therefore, that the
continued professional development of exercise physiologists within the
public sector will be increasingly understood as they teach, counsel, and/or
motivate the public to follow the ASEP perspective. The rewards of
professionalism are demonstrated in many different forms. Increasingly,
the most important reward is the opportunity to work with other professionals
who understand the path to professionalism. Aside from promotions
and financial incentives, there are increased privileges that allow for
opportunities to influence politicians and others who are gatekeepers to
new policies and procedures to practice exercise physiology.
The founders are in full agreement, as
has happened with founders of other healthcare organizations that the ASEP
vision embraces a strong dedication to licensure [7]. However, to
align good intentions with effective practice, the strategy for change
was defined by building a powerful infrastructure that articulates the
ASEP values and changing landscape for all exercise physiologists.
The vision, in particular, is the ASEP driving force behind the organization.
It is inseparable from the strategy. Anyone who doesn’t share the
leadership values, regardless of their status, is negative energy for organizational
growth. Clearly, it is virtually impossible (and predictably, a waste
of time) to change the thinking of critics. Not everyone has the
courage to see beyond his or her own back yard.
Professionalism is not about justifying
one’s selective beliefs. For example, it should be obvious that exercise
science is not exercise physiology. The continued belief that it
is undervalues the relevance of exercise physiology and the beliefs that
associate with it. The tendency to criticize ASEP leadership is symptomatic
of the obvious need to avoid dealing with the academic and professional
problems that contradict the notion of a successful sports medicine influence.
Fortunately, the ASEP leadership is no longer anchored to the notion that
it needs a relationship with sports medicine. We can now see the
world from our perspective. All we need to do is to continue dreaming
what we want we want to be. It is a matter of discovering from within
ourselves (i.e., to be “open” to) the behaviors and abilities we believe
to be important to the professional development of exercise physiologists.
“This is the setting out.
The leaving of everything behind…preconceptions…definitions…language…narrow
field of vision….No longer expecting relationships, memories, words, or
letters to mean what they used to mean. To be, in a word: Open.”
-- Rabbi Lawrence Kushner
Thinking like an ASEP Exercise Physiologist
As a professional with an interest in
helping society, ASEP exercise physiologists look to the future for a new
exercise physiology. They are not interested in living in the past,
except to acknowledge that the sports medicine influence ought to stop.
Exercise physiologists have the right to their own professional organization
regardless of the sports medicine stance that ASEP cannot refer to itself
as such. This kind of thinking is exactly the reason exercise physiologists
must get out from under the influence of sports medicine. Only the
ASEP vision of the future makes sense, especially given that successful
professionals realize that they must be in control of their own professional
lives. Sports medicine continues to look backwards. It is completely
inconsistent with forward thinking. Trying to maintain control of
exercise physiologists is not just unethical but a statement of its arrogance.
ASEP exercise physiologists know that biomechanists,
sports psychologist, and other professional groups have their own organizations
and they are acknowledged by sports medicine, but ASEP is not recognized.
Thinking as founders of ASEP, it is disconcerting, unethical, and absolutely
unprofessional. Regardless of what sports medicine may think, conditions
can be changed. The future of exercise physiology is good.
ASEP has big dreams based on correct thinking for all the right reasons.
Students, in particular, have an increased opportunity to picture in their
minds a new future that is more complete with more control over how they
think and what they do. There shouldn’t be any question that practical
guidelines have been developed by the ASEP leadership to discern what is
best and appropriate for the sustained development of exercise physiology.
In our view, the main problem with the
sports medicine-ASEP points of view is lack of leadership for decades.
To have abandoned undergraduate programs to a mix of obvious variations
of a physical education degree, to create certifications separate from
specific academic degrees, and to claim original and future thinking about
exercise physiology are consistent with a major disservice to students.
The inaction and negligence tells the story and, therefore, the philosophical
doctrine that underpins the founding of ASEP. It should be noted
that, regardless of minimal help from the academic exercise physiologists,
many ASEP members are emotionally charged to see that the organization
is a success. They believe that it is okay to want success, to be
able to function efficiently with an undergraduate degree, and to demand
respect and financial stability.
The Transformation
Professional development is a process
of replacing the old thinking with the new thinking. The ASEP organization
is the new way of thinking. With it, exercise physiologists have
the opportunity to transform circumstances, impart opportunity, and release
the power of possibility thinking. ASEP is the authoritative standard
for all exercise physiologists. The most important decision exercise
physiologists can make today is to settle this issue of what will be the
ultimate authority of professional development for exercise physiologists.
This is the exact opposite of sports medicine and its focused beliefs about
exercise science. ASEP takes serious its efforts to professionalize
exercise physiologists. All of us within ASEP must allow, support,
and enable this process to go on until our collective endurance is fully
developed.
“Each time a person stands up
for an idea, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against
injustice, (s)he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other
from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build
a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”
-- Robert F. Kennedy
References
1. American Society of Exercise Physiologists.
(2003). ASEP Vision. [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/vision.htm
2. American Society of Exercise Physiologists.
(2003). Guidelines for the Accreditation of the Undergraduate Programs
in Exercise Physiology. [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/accredit.htm
3. American Society of Exercise Physiologists.
(2003). The Exercise Physiologist’s Certified Candidate’s Guide. [Online].
http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/EPCManual.html
4. American Society of Exercise Physiologists.
(2003). Code of Ethics. [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/ethics.htm
5. American Society of Exercise Physiologists.
(2003). ASEP Board of Certification Standards of Professional Practice.
[Online]. http://www.css.edu/ASEP/StandardsofProfessionalPractice.html
6. American Society of Exercise Physiologists.
(2003). ASEP Board Certified Exercise Physiologists. [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/ASEPBoardCertifiedExercisePhysiologists.html
7. American Society of Exercise Physiologists.
(2003). Licensure for Exercise Physiologists. [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/LicensureForExercisePhysiologist.pdf
