“Like athletics, sports nutrition is out of control.”

By all accounts my feelings aren’t that different from people who love what they do.  Part of what makes this article special is that it is about you and me.  Perhaps you identify with exercise physiology as I do.  Of course, others may do so as well but we know that not everyone is an exercise physiologist.  Look at it objectively and you will agree with me.

The development of modern exercise physiology can be traced back to physical education.  Forget the idea that you can find an exercise physiologist in traditional chemistry or physiology.  For the sake of common sense, let’s be honest with each other.  Exercise physiology grew out of physical education teachers who identified more with the scientific approach to athletics than teaching physical activities.  The genius of those who came before us took something that existed in an altogether different form and transformed it into new possibilities.  Today, many of my friends are exercise physiologists.  After all, they have an academic degree in exercise physiology.  Some, not many, are board certified by the American Society of Exercise Physiologists.  This is in itself easy to grasp.  But as you probably know from experience, not every exercise physiologist has a degree in exercise physiology.  And, even fewer exercise physiologists are board certified.

To be clear at the outset, this brief article is partly about who is an exercise physiologist.  Although I’m not the authority on the subject, I have an invested interest.  As you no doubt have figured out, there are others who are far more qualified.  The question isn’t who is the best to write about this subject.  The question is whether you are aware of the important differences between contemporary exercise physiology and the exercise physiology of the past 50 years.  This raises some interesting questions.  What is the difference between the two?  What role does a member from each period play in exercise physiology?  Answers to these questions provide clues to the myriad of reasons why the American Society of Exercise Physiologists was founded in 1997.  The truth is that exercise physiology under the umbrella of sports medicine is still rudimentary at best.  Sports medicine personalities are not going to disregard their own interests.  Nor would you necessarily expect sports medicine exercise physiologists to understand the distinction between the two organizations. 

It is possible that you know exactly what I mean.  But what you do about it is altogether something different.  No doubt you have heard a colleague say, “I’m an exercise physiologist.”  Yet, you know that his degree is in kinesiology or exercise science.  These are just two academic degrees with very different meanings.  This is the worst kind of miscommunication.  And for some obvious reasons, the simple answer to your colleague’s question, “That isn’t so.” just never gets said.  Instead, we stand down and allow a slew of clumsy events to take place.  One of these most unfortunate events is the role exercise physiology is playing in sports nutrition.  Decades ago sports (and, in particular, sports nutrition) were important areas from which exercise physiologists were interested in generating physiological data.  You may remember that exercise physiologists were not involved in perfecting athletic performances.  The feeling of “winning-at-all-costs” was not the driving force behind the research initiatives.

Generating, presenting, and publishing factual knowledge was new to exercise physiologists.  For the first time, they knew something different from throwing the ball on the court.  And they found themselves among traditional scientists and researchers; the experience was all-at-once a great feeling.  In the same vein, however, they unfortunately forgot what isn’t taught in the classroom.  That something is “values.”   Decades ago exercise physiologists did not value boosting athletic performance through performance-enhancers.  The use of research techniques to establish new records in athletics was valued per se.  Unfortunately, this is no longer the case.  Some of us can identify with colleagues who have talents and skills for boosting athletic performance.  The pursuit of that talent is all enduring unless a person’s value system is changed, which raises the question: “Is this the reason for the strained relationship between sports nutritionists and exercise physiology?”

Given the large sums of money that sports supplement companies spend on consultants, exercise physiologists (who often use the title, sports nutritionists) are now using science to serve the goals of sports.  It wasn’t always like this.  The fact that exercise physiology is now being used to serve athletics isn’t new.  This kind of scenario is very popular.  For example, “Is medicine for sale?” or “Is psychology for sale?”  Most bizarre of all, “Is sports nutrition for sale?” 

Put more plainly, are some exercise physiologists using the exercise physiology body of knowledge to benefit themselves?  This may be the case, given the ever-present view that suggests the quest is no longer the study of applied physiology.  Now, although I’m aware how odd this might sound, the importance of exercise physiology lies in setting new athletic records.  This value is far different from the original value.  It is also more competitive in the sense that what underpins the “search to win” is the research that goes into the performance-enhancing advertisements.

It is obvious that the growing involvement of exercise physiologists in the search and/or support for improvement in athletic records is a conflict of considerable importance.  On some level this is expected.  For decades exercise physiologists have not had a code of ethics or a philosophy of exercise physiology as a healthcare profession.  However, when exercise physiologists play an active role in finding supplements and drugs that encourage cheating in sports, it raises serious ethical problems. 

There isn’t any question that the sum of the research by exercise physiologists/sports nutritionists has been integral to the increased use of performance-enhancing supplements and drugs.  This distinction is important since it represents a way of thinking that goes against the inherent values in sports participation.  It also goes against the professional development of exercise physiology.  Without professionalism as a central guide to any profession, education and/or research will not create a profession.  All in all, this is the point isn’t it?  So now comes the question:  “If sports nutrition is vital to exercise physiology, how can exercise physiologists continue to turn a blind eye to the involvement of sports nutritionists in promoting performance-enhancing supplements?”   Needless to say, the growing support of supplements by sports nutritionists is not that different from the involvement of the medical community in doping [1-2]. 

Of course, this doesn’t derail the central premise of this article.  That is, the promotion of supplements and drugs by sports nutritionists is a cocktail of false signals for athletes.  For a myriad of reasons, it is not in the best interest of professionals to promote sports supplements.  Even if it were to be a childhood passion or a financial gain, the yearning to build arguments to protect the athletes from knowingly violating basic ethical principles is not an activity of professionals.  Of course, not everyone is a willing believer, but whether they believe or not, it doesn’t change the inevitable.  There is within the United States a network of relationships between sports nutritionists, exercise physiologists, sports industry consultants, CEOs, physicians, fitness consultants, and personal trainers in relation to performance-enhancers.  They have conspired to encourage the athlete’s impulse to find the edge.  The list of names could legitimately become the roll call of the “new sports nutrition.” 

Once you have had a moment to reflect on these words and their meaning, you should be concerned.  If it isn’t your child in athletics today, it will surely be your son’s child.  If things don’t change, that young person will be on a cocktail of supplements and drugs.  There will no longer be another side to sports.  In my opinion, sports nutrition is out of control.  Surely steps must be taken to get the attention of sports nutritionists/exercise physiologists who are engaged in questionable practices.  This is not a new idea.  The fixation on performance-enhancing substances is no different from the same fixation and search for a high-performance drug [3]. 

Do I have your attention now?  Unless exercise physiologists face up to this basic truth and do something to resolve it, all the hard work to get to where they are may peter out before significant momentum is with them.  I understand how this may sound.  So where do exercise physiologists turn if they were to have the same concerns as I do?  How about writing about the menacing danger of supplements and drugs and how both undermine athletes?  How about coming to grips with the fact that the popularity of sports nutrition today comes down to corporate big money? 

Remember the old maxim, “You can’t see the picture when you are inside the frame.”  Well, this is exactly the problem with exercise physiologists who have spent their entire professional life inside the frame of sports nutrition.  No wonder they have become blind to the economic and academic changes in sports nutrition.  No wonder they don’t know their behavior argues for breaking the rules to become a winner.  Therein lies the secret to real change.  Since the sports nutritionists cannot see or understand their meltdown of behaviors, exercise physiologists must stop being complicit in the dependence on performance-enhancing agents.

There are compelling reasons that change is inevitable if exercise physiologists are to keep their research from becoming mere spectacles.  Perhaps, worst of all if they don’t change, the deeper danger is that they will continue to cheat themselves.  The promise or the illusion that drugs and performance-enhancing substances can take the place of a sense of moral, ethical, and personal responsibility is empty.  Integrity may seem like something a philosophy teacher would talk about, but it is at the heart of life, sports, and truth.  The reason for this is that we have learned that there are right and wrong ways of doing things. 

Professionals are supposed to behave in a just and fair way.  There is nothing confusing about what that means.  Most exercise physiologists agree that there are some ways that athletes ought not win competitions, such as “cheating” or “trickery.”  An athlete with integrity behaves in an honest way.  If the athlete wins, then it has value.  Courage to be authentic in face of corruption in sports is rare but important.  It is what athletes ought to do.  It is the foundation of honest and fair athletics.  On the other hand, performance-enhancing supplements are not central to sports and straight thinking.  Athletes who use them move away from the reality of fair play, character development, and accountability. 

“…sportsmanship means conducting athletics while adhering to the highest principles of respect or civility, responsibility, integrity and justice/fairplay.”  [4] 

This is also true for the professional development of exercise physiology.  Wrongdoing is a knowing act; steroids, illegal recruiting practices, supplements, and other ingenious ways to cheat stains the athlete’s reputation.  The rumors of widespread unethical practices within a profession is equally damaging to its reputation. 

In a profession where “exercise” is in the title, and where “athletics” is a career option, where almost no one is discussing cheating, supplements, and athletics, it is disheartening.  This is equally true for the unethical behavior of coaches and athletic administrators who should be setting a positive example for impressionable athletes.  Unfortunately, too many of these individuals are involved in corruption and money scandals.  Too many sports nutritionists search through the scientific literature in hopes of figuring out how a substance can be used for athletic purposes [5].  Their influence on drug and supplement use in sports is questionable. 

However important competition and winning are to the athlete, neither should be allowed to replace the inherent values of sport itself.  Professors, for certain, should be role models for students and athletes.  They cannot allow the “money” and “recognition” that associate with winning, whether it is in the sports industry or in publishing, to displace the honor of trust in sports and in exercise physiology.  They must therefore deal with the widespread negative influences of each. 

If they continue to avoid this growing problem, they are just as guilty as the CEOs of the sports industry and, yes, the athletes who cheat [6].  The shabby professional ethics of both erodes personal responsibility to sports and the commitment of professionalism in exercise physiology.  Why college teachers are acting in ways contrary to professionalism is not a mystery.  It’s all about business, money, fame, and power.  Twisting the truth, exaggerating statistics, and misusing position of authority by unethical scientists call for a revival of integrity.  The former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson said it best: “If you have integrity, nothing else matters.  If you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters.” 

This kind of thinking is critical to the fundamentals of shaping exercise physiology.  And, in particular, the classroom bears inescapable responsibility to take cheating seriously.  It is a time to be proactive.  Cheating must be stopped before unethical scientists begin to promote genetic engineering.  Yes, gene doping is just around the corner. 

“The virtues of discipline, fair play, team work, excellence, commitment, loyalty, and aesthetics are given expression and illustrated on the baseball diamond, the basketball court, and the football field.”  -- Blake W. Burleson [7]

If it is inevitable that these things will happen, who among exercise physiologists is talking about it, what are their feelings (e.g., regarding the use of beta-blockers, like Propranolol) by athletes?  Is society at fault or is it the athlete?  After all, a large percent of Americans are abusing psychopharmaceuticals at an alarming rate.  Exercise physiologists need to start thinking about these questions now.  There is a very real concern and likelihood that the imperfection of sports will only get worse.  What should separate exercise physiologists from fitness professionals (including personal trainers) is the ethical base of the leadership.  Any organization that takes the time to think about ethical issues and morality is going to be far ahead of its competitors. 

With the network of Internet websites devoted to rapid deployment of supplements to enhance human performance, it is stunning that essentially no one in exercise physiology is concerned.  In the not too distant future, there will be websites devoted to genetically enhanced bodies!  As strange as it might sound, the physical enhancement of children might become commonplace.  If so, exercise physiologists may no longer engage in what is now known to be their body of knowledge.  Work will center completely on physical appearances, mental functions, and excelling at everything, regardless of the costs.  Sounds a bit far out, right?  It isn’t that far at all.

Genetic intervention will undermine what is left of dignity in sports and life.  Everything will be about being #1 or nothing.  Anything less than being a winner will be viewed as not worth being, which will create unbelievable difficulties because it is not possible that everyone can be #1.  This is exactly why exercise physiologists ought to be concerned with statements like “…optimizing attributes or capabilities…” and “…supplementing the functioning of normal genes…” through the transfer of genetic material.  Genetic enhancement may seem to be a far leap from the evolving profession of exercise physiology, but is it really? 

The abuse of enhancing substances (like the synthetic version of erythropoetin) raises a host of questions.  Will there be sports programs for the enhanced and the non-enhanced?  I haven’t the foggiest idea.  Also, I haven’t the faintest notion when it will be recognized that the use of performance-enhancing supplements is cheating!   But, until then, I’m not going to sell out my profession, demean sports or give in to the bottom line mentality.  I’m going to dig in and stay the course, which reminds me of a quote by Robert H. Schuller [8]: 

“Tough times never last, but tough people do!” 

References
1. Waddington, I. (1996). The Development of Sports Medicine. Sociology of Sport Journal. 13:176-196.
2. Todd, T. (1987). Anabolic Steroids: The Gremlins of Sport. Journal of Sport History. 14:87-107.
3. Waddington, I. (2001). Doping in Sport: Some Issues for Medical Practitioners.  Physical Education and Sport. 1:8:51-59.
4. National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics. (2005). General Information on Champions of Character. [Online]. http://www.naia.org/cc/ccphase2/generalinfo.html
5. Yesalis, C.E. (1990). Winning and Performance-Enhancing Drugs – Our Dual Addiction. The Physician and Sportsmedicine. 18:3:161-163, 167.
6. Yesalis, C.E. (2005). Societal Alternatives to Performance-Enhancing Drug and Supplement Use in Sport. Testimony before the Subcommittee, Trade, and Consumer Protection and the Subcommittee on Health.
7. Burleson, B.W. (1997). Life is Not a Sport – Ethical Considerations of the Modern Sports Phenomenon. Journal of Christian Ethics. 3:3: 1-5.
8. Schuller, R.H. (1983). Tough Times Never Last, But Tough People Do!  New York, NY: Thomas Nelson Publishers.