The Culture of 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

“Even if you are running a little mom-and-pop store somewhere, the power of emotion is in your story.  If you stop reminding customers and prospective customers of your story, you give them one more reason to go someplace else.” – Scott McKain

Someone might think that there is hardly anything else I could write about exercise physiology that I haven’t said before in the Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline electronic journal.  Well, I read somewhere that a person should never underestimate an idea.  So, how about the following statement:  “Exercise physiology is an inbred and ingrown field.”  By this I mean that the academic gatekeepers have their own rules.  Their preoccupation with their rules has cut them off from the reality of their students.  

Nearly a decade ago I decided that because of this understanding, students are extremely vulnerable to the hard won outcomes of other healthcare professionals.  Most notably, the almost unspoken institutional viewpoint that exercise physiologists, by title, require the doctorate degree is seriously discouraging to young professionals.  Need a job?  Sure, after spending $60,000 in tuition fees and after hanging your Exercise Science diploma on the wall, you can be a Personal Trainer!   Those who love the field stick with it anyway.  Others are able to manage the dissatisfaction.  The realization of their dream is gone or, at least it appears so without an advanced degree or a switch altogether to another major.  

To appreciate how widespread this problem is in the United States, just look around you.  Check out the colleges and universities in your city, state, or adjacent states or, for that matter, any where throughout the country.  Every department by title, academic degree, academic offerings, and more is available on the Internet.  If you are thinking about college, then look at the curriculum of the school you are thinking about attending.  If you are a college teacher, the time spent examining the websites is not time lost.  Indeed, you will come away from it with a new perspective.  

But, for the moment, I need to describe very briefly several encounters on behalf of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists (ASEP).  They include on one hand a major disinterest in the ASEP goals and objectives, accompanied by a preoccupation of dislike for its leadership, and on another the general turf war mentality that says:  “We are right and you guys are all wrong.”  Instead of promoting exercise physiology collaboratively for our students as well as the management of exercise physiology, the culture of exercise physiology is contrary to its need to change.  What I’ve learned is that students come second in college.  But like any analysis, it is best to start at the beginning.

In the 1970sand 1980s no one had a lot of insight into what exercise physiology was or might become.  So those who taught exercise physiology did their research, presented papers at national meetings and, almost by default, helped to develop a concentration in exercise physiology.  For the most part, these programs exist today as part of dozens of different academic majors.  Again, no one stopped to think what it meant to concentrate course work in a major like kinesiology or human performance.  Worst yet, the notion of an undergraduate degree in exercise science surfaced with a general agreement that it somehow was the right thing to do.  The mistake is still with us and, yet it explains much of the conflict students find themselves in at graduation.  

Confucius said it best:  “In all things success depends on previous preparation and without such preparation there is sure to be failure.”  Rather than departments processing the need to update their thinking, looking for new ideas and insights into programmatic changes, and understanding the link between an academic major and a career, they embraced the “exercise specialist” and “health fitness instructor” way of thinking.  No one can predict with certainty, but I think history will show that the 20th century thinking was a huge mistake.  Even if it wasn’t believed to be a mistake early on to do so, there simply isn’t any doubt that it set the students up to fail.  It is a major programmatic mistake.  Members of other professions have stretched their thinking and action to now include health and fitness in their practice bills.  Still, 30 to 40 years later, exercise physiologists and others within sports medicine are talking about what ought to be done.  The ASEP leadership, on the other hand, has done something about the mistake.  I know, because I am one of them.  

As a college teacher, I’m not impressed with colleagues who believe undergraduate programs in exercise science turn out exercise scientists or worse yet, exercise physiologists.  It makes no sense with change occurring at the phenomenal rate that is obvious in healthcare.  Just as business procedures and strategies must change with time, so must education, the faculty, and our collective thinking.  In fact, in some ways, it is even more critical that educators are among the front line thinkers in the change process.  Our business, if you will, is the setting by which our students’ investments are worthy of their time and money.  

Education as we knew it decades ago cannot drive what we do today.  We need to open our minds to new possibilities.  The exercise physiologist of the 20th century is far removed from the exercise physiologist of the 21st century.  There is simply too much competition for academic space, degree programs, and efficiency as well as increasing problems that associate with healthcare and its complexity, conflicts, and ever changing issues and concerns to keep the old model.  It is not just outdated, it is wrong.  The culture of exercise physiology is different today. 

Yet I’m still shocked to find that some of my academic colleagues are confident that just attending college is enough, regardless of whether the students locate a job or not.  What happens after college is not their concern.  This, I’ve determined, is a symptom of the culture of exercise physiology.  Surprisingly or should I say, unsurprisingly, exercise physiologists have paid plenty of attention to themselves.  Think about it for a moment and you may see what I mean.  In the sports medicine culture, where the majority of the doctorate exercise physiologists are culturally held captive, there are strong forces and barriers to working with the ASEP leadership.  

This is a problem for multiple reasons.  First, if an exercise physiologist is a college teacher, the emphasis should be on the student’s education.  How the teacher articulates his/her future as a professional should be second.  Secondly, the process of developing new programs from new thinking includes overcoming the barriers of groupthink and organizational imposition.  The stereotyping should not be allowed and, if that had been the case years earlier, it is clearly logical that the organization of undergraduate programs for accreditation would be in full swing.  Instead, it was removed from the agenda, thus leaving exercise physiologists with one objective.  And, frankly, that idea was stolen from others, that is, you are judged “who is somebody” and “who is not somebody” according to the number of research papers published or presented at national conferences, not by the quality of your teaching or even how many courses you teach.

For instance, I noticed decades ago that if the faculty did not have a published record or did not present at conferences, the institution was not highly regarded even if it was an excellent program.  I also learned that despite the publishing of considerable papers and presentations at national meetings, many were not good teachers and some didn’t teach at all.  Of course the challenge has always been doing both with a degree of excellence.  Even today, the younger colleagues, fresh out of doctorate programs, don’t believe it is possible.  Their teachers have told them that it is not possible, and that only a fool would even try.  As a result, many leave college with their mind and eyes closed to the fact that it is being done!  Almost each evening I think of a colleague who understands the importance of research and teaching.  They, like me, are interested in college teachers who can focus on the students’ education and career opportunities as well as engaging in exercise physiology research that defines both the exercise physiology body of knowledge and the exercise physiologist’s career niche in the public sector.  

What is obvious is simply this:  We are living in a culturally diverse society with huge career opportunities.  However, we must open our eyes to the importance of building an academic base of inclusion rather than one of exclusion.  Presently, our students are excluded from healthcare even though they are generally competent in healthcare.  Inclusion begins with a serious investment in time, energy, and heart on behalf of the evolving profession of exercise physiology.  Exercise physiologists must assume leadership roles in the change process.  There is no reason to stay the sports medicine course.  It is too late and altogether in the wrong direction (e.g., certifying personal trainers).  

The American Society of Exercise Physiologists is its fighting chance for survival as a healthcare profession.  Academic exercise physiologists need to reconsider the direction they have taken and get involved in the refinement of academic course work and the scope of exercise physiology practice.  They cannot stop the positive changes already in place, but it is true they can, through their culture of “no” make it easier for other healthcare professions to ultimately define a more limited future for jobs in the public sector for all non-doctorate exercise physiologists.  Is this really what the professor wants?  I truly hope this is not the case.

Think about it.  Even after the work of so few to create something special for so many students through the ASEP initiatives, if an exercise physiologist at some college felt diminished by it or that the initiatives ran counter to his organization’s view of exercise physiology, a negative comment shared with students and others can do huge damage.  The net effect is a delay in reaching the ASEP vision.  It takes character to get beyond past thinking, to deal effectively with groupthink, and to be accountable and attentive to the needs of the students.  

In other words, doing the right thing is never easy.  Exercise physiologists of the future will teach about the difficulty in professional development courses for their students.  Until then, it would be especially respectful of the right to different views if the dissenters of ASEP would stop thinking that their culture is the only view of exercise physiology.  The future of exercise physiology is inextricably dependent on the significant involvement of all exercise physiologists.  It is therefore important that exercise physiologists of the 21st century accept the challenge to become visible partners in the professional development of exercise physiology.

Perhaps, at this point, it would also be helpful to state that none of the members of the ASEP Board of Directors is interested in denigrating another organization or one of its products.  From the founding of ASEP in 1997, the leadership sought cooperation not competition with other organizations.  Ironically, the founders of ASEP discovered early on, as did subsequent ASEP leaders, that the leadership of other organizations was not interested in teamwork.  The truth is that large organizations are very protective of their mission, and they should be.  

However, when bureaucracy overrules commonsense, too often, the result is confusion and more conflict.  When this happens, it is likely to cause problems within the organization and its relationship with other organizations.  The net result of all this jockeying to drive its own professional and cultural thinking and to protect the profits of the products (certifications) is that no one is thinking about the customer, the student.  It would be quite different if the commitment was, first, to the students and, second, to the common agenda of the faculty.  

I’m a strong believer that college teachers owe a debt of gratitude to their students.  Otherwise, the power of the position is essentially meaningless.  Without students to front the costs of keeping the doors open, departments, divisions, and colleges are closed down.  Students are [the] power factor in the equation of our success as professors.  While I can truthfully say that for decades I did not put much thought in this point, I am devoted to it now.  I understand it.  I appreciate it and, wherever possible, speak openly face-to-face with everyone about the role of the college professor in rethinking strategies on behalf of students.  I have even published articles about it in the Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline journal.  I suppose I have always advocated for students, even when it was not in my best interest to do so.  I have also learned that it is not expected of the academic exercise physiologist to preside over the change process that confronts exercise physiology when in fact it should be a shared priority.  Unilateral action by the chair per se or even the exercise physiologist cannot create the degree of academic and department commitment that is required for advancing exercise physiology.

What I have discovered during the past 10 years as Professor and Chair of the Department of Exercise Physiology at The College of St. Scholastica is that most academic exercise physiologists wait to see what is going to happen with a new idea.  They may have something to say about it, but they are not ready to get directly involved.  At least this is the case until the benefits of the work of others are recognizable and it is relatively safe to depart from the old culture.  Then, some even want to take ownership, if not dictate exactly how everything should be done.  Seldom are they involved at the beginning when the hard work is almost unbelievable and when talking about a shared vision is little more than one set of hands on the key board.  Seldom are they [the] leaders of the organization who understand that success is built on persistence, determination, courage, and principles of right and wrong.  

In other words, they know the differences between exercise science and exercise physiology!  The answer is clear to them.  Maybe they have learned that most plans for securing one’s position are an illusion.  And, maybe, their uncertainty with the stagnation and disorder of staying the same or failing to make significant (and logically correct) changes causes them to think about new ideas and new possibilities.  Those who get it are no longer victims of the past.  They are no longer interested in the jobs left over from yesterday’s thinking.  They are good examples of the kind of professionals exercise physiology needs to achieve the professional healthcare status.  

The development of positive career opportunities and growth-producing professional strategies begins with an attitude of embracing the commitment to ASEP as the professional organization of exercise physiologists.  This is why exercise physiologists as leaders, not necessarily as researchers, in the field must rise to the occasion.  Something prescriptive other than more lactic acid studies must enter the academic hallways.  It is our challenge to find new pathways and work to create the changes that await our imprint.  Bear in mind, this does not mean that ASEP does not value research.  At the core of ASEP’s existence, there is no debate about research.  Above all, research is imperative to a profession.  But, success as an entry-level exercise physiologist depends on having the credentials to meet the needs of the public.  Being fully informed about what should be taught and how it connects with the needs of the pubic is the objective to shoot for.  

I am struck by the culture of academic exercise physiology failing to respond to the marketplace.  As a result, much of the program offerings at colleges and universities are driven by past thinking (i.e., such as this is what we have always done).  Professors must develop programs that serve both the students and their customers (the public).  The benefits are obvious.  The failure to do so is equally obvious and very troubling.  Therefore, we must change the culture of exercise physiology if we are to pursue growth with respect, growth with dignity, and growth with ethics.  This must be our new mindset of the early 21st century.  

If we are to succeed as a new healthcare profession, members of ASEP have to think faster, implement quicker, and do the impossible.  They must learn the importance of sharing the vision, staying the course, and helping those who are fighting change discover that there is not a lot of time for debate.  Time is critical in transforming the anti-ASEP behavior that is non-supportive.  Decisions based on facts and data should drive the increased focus on topics of exercise physiology leadership, professional development, and healthcare.  And, it should be made known to everyone that all members and those who join ASEP will be given high priority in everyway possible by the ASEP leadership.  In time, it will become clear to others that if you want to be an exercise physiologist, then, ASEP is the place to get ahead.  ASEP holds the real vision established for all exercise physiologists.  ASEP is where exercise physiologists can create themselves.  They don’t have to copy sports medicine.  Instead, they can build a new exercise physiology; one that is dedicated to professionalism, quality certification, and student satisfaction through accredited academic programs.  

As I write this, it is clear that making ASEP [the] professional organization of exercise physiologists comes down to shaking loose the sports medicine culture.  After all, only irresponsibility would stop or continue to slow the urgency to embrace the future.  ASEPers know the business they are in, and they understand the importance of the product.  So, new thinking is evitable and a new ASEP’s marketplace-based mission is defined as the shift from the old to the new culture.  We are no longer interested in how many articles you have published.  Rather, the questions are:  “What are you doing for exercise physiology?” and “How are exercise physiologists going to secure their market niche in healthcare?”   Answers to these questions are embedded in the ASEP documents.  This understanding can be achieved only when exercise physiologists have reawakened their sense of critical thinking and discovery.  It will not happen overnight, but it will (and is) happening.  Everyday, the ASEP National Office gets calls regarding how to find an “Exercise Physiologist” in their location.  The word is out.  There is no denying the contribution of exercise physiology to health, fitness, rehabilitation, and athletics.    

In my heart, I believe that most of my colleagues already have a sneaking suspicion that what the ASEP leaders have done is 100% right.  Yet only a few are prepared to tackle the day-to-day business fundamentals of ASEP, and only a few have placed their faith in ASEP.   No one ever said building a profession would come without hard work.  It isn’t that easy and only a few people have what it takes to stay the course.  The bright young doctorates can think about it all they want to, but when it comes to exercise physiology, ASEP is [the] professional organization of exercise physiologists.  To those who argue otherwise, it’s very, very hard for ASEP exercise physiologists to relate to their misdirected thinking.  As I think about it, there is no question that we have lost major career opportunities by our association with past thinking.  The bottom line is this:  At the end of the day a successful, focused ASEP leadership is one that has defined the future of exercise physiology and understands the concerns of its customers, both in college (students) and those who ultimately become clients and patients in the public sector.  

But, first, it is important to refresh one of the themes of this piece.  What is most important about the 20th century culture of exercise physiology is the deep understanding of the importance of research.  This understanding is critical to all professions, and if exercise physiology is competitive in its healthcare niche, it will have to delimit with cautious clarity the role it plays in healthcare.  This analysis is also critical to the economic realities of various career opportunities that track specifically to the ASEP vision.  And, yet vision per se (however a goal to shoot for, to hope for, to play for) is not the day-to-day work or month-by-month work required to move ASEP in the forefront of healthcare.  

In other words, building an organization, like ASEP, requires research, data collection, strategic analysis, and conclusions along with risk taking (both personally and professionally).  Collectively speaking, all of this refers to a strategy that results in the measurement of progress from one solved problem to the next unsolved problem.  It is about making the ASEP vision happen!  It is about changing lives and careers from technicians to professional.  It takes much thinking, time, and patience, and as much determination as is possible to stay the course.  With each new generation of career-oriented exercise physiologists, exercise physiology will move closer to becoming the vision of its members.

So, at the end of the day, more often than not, it is possible to redefine our culture.  What’s needed is the willingness to step up to the plate – leadership.  Then, what is critical to our success is “execution.”  Every member of the Board or Boards of ASEP must step up to the plate with a solid and effective strategic plan of action.  Winners never talk about “what we are going to do” – rather, “what we are doing.”  Execution is about having the ability to say, “It is completed, and it is a done deal.”  Changing the worldview of exercise physiology is exactly consistent with this statement (i.e., accountability translates as execution of measured results).  Hence, “What do you have for me today?”  “Where are the data?”  “What was the process by which your findings were derived?”  The approach is a strategic one that demands tough accountability that also explains the success of the new culture.  It is worth nurturing, but what isn’t worth losing time over is anyone who cannot see the big picture, like teachers and/or colleagues who say, “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”  

Remember the saying, “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.”  Okay, what about this saying, “If you have conviction and belief, it is a matter of time.”  I am sure that you understand my point.  Success is a product of hard work.  It is directly defined by an “attitude” of success that says in essence, “I’m the best, and I’m committed.”  Otherwise, why would a person who graduates from an accredited academic program work for a fly-by-night operation?  Leaders and educators know the difference, and they (in particular) are driven to be winners among others who value setting goals and holding each other accountable for one’s work.  The driving force is their passion to do the right thing for the right reason.  They are not interested in doing the wrong thing.  They are interested in doing the right thing the very best possible.  They are passionate about their work, and passion is everything!  There is nothing new about any of this except in the context of exercise physiology.  There is nothing new about the stimulating feelings like, “We are the ASEP organization, and we are making a difference.”  “Our hearts are in the right place for the right reasons – we just need more of them!"   

Sports medicine is big, and size is important.  It is hard to question it.  With size there is a certain obvious power and control over decisions and opportunities.  Size allows for increased risk taking, especially when the size of the membership is big.  In short, big is not necessarily bad.  But, in reality, small is not always insignificant.  Not surprisingly, this is one of the most important lessons learned in athletics.  Big and small can have more in common than most have been willing to examine.  It will take time, but it will hit you like a rock.  You will come to agree that the true culture of exercise physiology is defined by ASEP, not sports medicine.  It isn’t a question of sports medicine prevailing over ASEP.  It’s a question of whether exercise physiologists can come to terms with the new ASEP culture.  If they can, the sports medicine personalities must get out of the business of exercise physiology or, at the very least, come to look at exercise physiology from the ASEP point of view.  In the long run, it is necessary to help ensure that members from both organizations get along better in this competitive world of health, fitness, rehabilitation, and athletics.    

Please do not misunderstand my comments; it is not a question of them versus us!  Rather, I believe that in today’s highly competitive, yet totally unregulated world of fitness and personal trainers that has been cultivated [in part] by sports medicine, it is simply a mess for the professional exercise physiologist.  In other words, it is foolish for exercise physiologists to continue to allow sports medicine to dictate their future.  Having said this, however, the integrated changes discussed by the ASEP leadership awaits the obvious, that is, time.  Those of us who have required ourselves to study the change process understand all too well the decisions that await “time” as well as the guts it takes to “stay the course”.  How many times must it be written, “Change requires the individual to come to an understanding of the old versus the new exercise physiology model?”  Academic exercise physiologists, in particular, can no longer define their work by their personal, professional prerogatives and/or autonomy.  The old way of thinking is out!  The new way of thinking is a composite of redirecting and/or reintegrating original thinking (from decades earlier) with the new ASEP perspectives.  What follows then is the exercise physiologist who is willing to walk the walk.  

As I mentioned earlier, exercise physiologists need to change, and they need to get with the change today.  The world we live in is different from yesterday.  We are no longer the new “academics” on the block.  The times have changed.  The old view of exercise physiology is just that, old.  For years we have heard that it is enough to be an exercise specialist.  Guess what?  It is not enough!  No matter how good the specialist is at working with patients, regardless of the certification, if it is not an ASEP certification, the job isn’t going any where.  In part, that is why the exercise specialists of yesterday are becoming the trainers of today.  This may seem to you as progress.  

It isn’t.  Had the specialist certification been properly thought out in the first place, more “customers” of the product would have been retained.  Unfortunately, the product was flawed from the beginning because it failed to invest in the future of exercise physiology as a profession.  That is why there is so much discussion of this organization and that organization talking about how each one plans to make things better.  And, before exercise physiologists can deal with the public issues, they must deal with the business at home.  That is, it isn’t “how” can we manipulate teaching loads and laboratory space most convenient for academic exercise physiologists?  It is “how” can academic exercise physiologists do their teaching and laboratory responsibilities better to benefit the customer, the student?  It’s all about the student. 

The ASEP leadership recognized the need to change from yesterday’s thinking to meet the professional needs of students and colleagues.  That is why it is [the] professional organization of exercise physiologists.  There is no question that ASEP is absolutely, positively [the] organizational culture that can “make the students’ academics different from that of the fitness specialists.”  The ASEP leadership believes that every student has the right to a professional education that makes a difference.  This is exactly what makes ASEP the unique organization of professionals.  Anyone can create certifications.  ASEP created [the] certification needed by exercise physiologists.  ASEP created accreditation guidelines and accredited academic programs.  Again, this is exactly what makes ASEP different from other organizations.  And, most importantly, the ASEP leadership didn’t just talk about making it happen.  Members of the three Boards made it happen.  The organizational culture is grounded in hard work and sacrifice.  These points are vitally important, and they aren’t just for show or for building the bottom line.        

The ASEP leadership is willing to adjust, to change, and to adapt (i.e., to do whatever is necessary) to ensure the professional development of exercise physiology.  Part of this strategy is that the leadership is interested in making an emotional connection with its members.  It is a vital part of the ASEP culture, as is the eagerness of the leadership to help ensure the marketability of all exercise physiologists.  The leadership believes that exercise physiologists are healthcare professionals who are willing to think and do outside the box.  It is an insanely great idea, given that so much time has already been lost going in the wrong direction.  Students are literally in the doghouse of jobs.  And, if you are listening, you hear words such as unfair, frustrating, and even anger, fear, and anxiety.  Their enthusiasm and sense of excitement for exercise physiology aren’t gone.  They want to work as exercise physiologists.  Instead, they are denied the title, forced to get other certifications, and are given little respect and financial incentive.  

Why?  Because of the uncertainty that followed them after graduation with an exercise science degree.  This is why the ASEP organization is so important.  Its culture gives hope to students throughout the United States.  The focus is on the needs and interests of exercise physiologists, not the organization per se.  It is about communicating a vision, a future for the members, and respect for all exercise physiologists.  In closing, in the words of Howard Marguleas, chairman of a produce company called Sun World, “Never cease to pursue the opportunity to seek something different.  Don’t be satisfied with what you’re doing.  Always try to seek a way and a method to improve up what you’re doing, even if it’s considered contrary to the traditions of an industry.”  These words by Marguleas are sweet music to my ears.  They comfort me.  They give me hope and a piece of mind as do the following words:  

“We become what we think, what we talk about, and what we do.  If we think that our work is for the right reasons, if we think that our actions will produce positive results, and if we start living as professionals, we will become our vision.” -- Tommy Boone