Editorial from ASEP's President
Dear Exercise Physiologists,
In the fall of 1983, I
completed my Master’s degree in Exercise Physiology. Not a day has gone
by, in the last twenty years, where I have not wondered what I will do
when I grow up! Over that same period of time, my passion for exercise
and the profession of exercise physiology has never faded.
As ASEP’s sixth annual meeting draws near, I find
myself reflecting on the past year and preparing for meetings and presentations
in Indianapolis. There is much to talk about and yet there is even more
to be done. On April 1-3, we are anticipating a great turnout for this
conference. The anticipation stems from ASEP’s appeal to grassroots exercise
physiologists. The grassroots exercise physiologists are those professionals
working in the trenches of fitness centers, corporations, and healthcare.
These are the exercise professionals who feel the daily pressure of performance
without professional identity, without respect, and without financial reward.
ASEP’s appeal to this
group is significant because for the first time in history a national organization
has demonstrated significant commitment to the professional needs and issues
facing exercise physiologists. Following the first ever “Summit on the
Licensure of Exercise Physiologists” several years ago, ASEP pledged
support for professional exercise physiologists through a written proclamation
outlining our position and course of action. At this year’s annual meeting,
I will map out our current position and share a course of action for several
years to come.
During the past year,
the ASEP Board of Directors have met regularly, prepared documents, planned
the annual meeting, drafted a strategic plan, and lobbied state legislators.
We have found friends in strange places, lost members from our board and
gained members on our board. We have started new state associations and
gained membership. You couldn’t ask for more but I am. We still need YOUR
help. There are committees that need members to get work done. If we spread
the tasks among many people the organization becomes stronger and exercise
physiologists benefit from an hour of your time each week
At the national meeting
we hope to have GREAT news! This news will drive many discussions among
exercise physiologists for weeks, months and maybe years after this meeting
is done. At the very least you will see what ASEP has done for you and
what ASEP is planning to do for professional exercise physiologists. It
is no small step.
ASEP has stayed the course
and will demonstrate that it is an exciting time for professional exercise
physiologists. Please join us in Indianapolis on April 1-3, 2004.
Sincerely,
Steve Jungbauer, MA, MBA, FASEP, FAACVPR
Board Certified Exercise Physiologist,
President
Exercise Physiology News and Comments
From the Co-Editor: Dr.
Tommy Boone
Placing Blame and Consequences
Several days ago, two intelligent young men in a very highly recognized
academic institution contacted me for a brief discussion about lifestyle
factors, diseases, and the responsibilities each person shares in the overall
healthcare picture in the United States if not worldwide. The students’
objective was to identify a method to ensure that individuals exercised
when they said they did. While exercise is important for the obvious
reasons, the idea of requiring members of any community to a predetermined
exercise program is unsettling to me. They wanted to know if there
was a physiological measurement, such as heart rate, that could identify
a specific person from another person. The thinking goes something
like this: “If exercise is so important, and if disease is decreased by
exercise, then anyone who is not exercising is contributing to society’s
problems (e.g., emotional and/or physical and, particularly, costs of healthcare
insurance to others, and the costs of hospital treatment). Non-exercisers
then must be held accountable by paying higher insurance premiums.
They cannot be allowed to continue contributing to the healthcare problems
of society.”
Frankly, this kind of thinking scares me a lot. It is everything
that democracy is not. However unfortunate it is that a certain percent
of the 260+ million people in the United States may engage in unhealthy
practices, it is their right. As an exercise physiologist, the consequences
of requiring every person to walk or run 5 miles a week is troubling to
me. Similarly, it would wrong to mandate that every person must dress
a certain way on Tuesday, read only certain books, avoid certain movies,
go to bed exactly at 9:00 pm every night, or weigh within two pounds of
an identified weight for a person’s height. This kind of thinking
has no place in a democratic society. Big brother is not always right
and, as for as science goes, what we thought we knew at one time may be
discarded a month or a year from now. Just imagine how many helpless
Type As must have suffered and worried themselves uselessly because it
was so-called “proven” that their type caused heart disease and premature
heart attacks. We know that this is not true, and that the data from
more than 30 years ago were incomplete. Failure to take into account
the multifaceted complexity of what we as human beings is always a problem.
Under no circumstances should exercise physiologists get caught up in
placing blame on the victims for their disease or dysfunction. There
are simply too many diseases and dysfunctions that have no identifiable
cause or causes. There are too many people every year in the United
States who have heart attacks without having elevated low-density lipoprotein
cholesterol. Stress itself may not be the problem. It may have
something to do with the person’s genetic disposition to disease.
Life is more than research, although research is an excellent tool to understand
some aspects of lifestyle factors. So, when it comes to finding a
physiological measurement or an ankle band with a personalized chip to
determine a person’s exercise habits, the hairs on the back of my neck
stand up. This kind of thinking that holds the “person” accountable
by raising his or her premiums for healthcare insurance to make the bottom
line easier for big business is wrong. It is uncritical, unethical,
and un-American. Yet, frankly, it is very likely to hit us square
between the eyes at some point in the future? That is also why we
must be especially prepared with solid ethical thinking and science to
not allow big business to intrude any farther into the American way of
living.
As a related story, did you read about the “teacher who was refused
a job because her relatives have Huntington’s disease”? Jane Burgermeister
reported the case in the British Medical Journal [1]. To paraphrase
what was reported, a young teacher in Germany was refused a permanent job
because members of her family have Huntington’s disease. Since she
therefore has a risk of developing the disease, the employer rejected her
for a job on the grounds of a prediction that places the burden of the
risk on the young teacher. This kind of thinking is totally unacceptable.
This is not the purpose of research. Discrimination is wrong in any
form. Exercise physiologists should find time to reflect on this
issue and related issues since they are involved in the healthcare field
as practitioners and researchers.
Reference
1. Burgermeister, J. (2003). Teacher was refused job because relatives
have Huntington’s disease. British Medical Journal. 327 (October
11): 827. [Online]. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7419/827
Exercise Physiology Certification: What is it?
The personal training industry is not a profession. Exercise
physiology is a profession. There are dozens of organizations that
offer personal trainer certifications. There is only one organization
of exercise physiologists. Accrediting an organization to certify
personal trainers is not the same thing as an academic institution accreditation.
The ASEP Board of Accreditation has accredited six colleges and universities.
The academic program in each is a professional degree. Again, a certification
program that is accredited by an organization is not the same as the accreditation
of an academic institution. Individuals disinterested in these basic
axioms are foolishly traveling down the wrong road. It is also a
huge waste of time and money.
Personal trainers are not in position to call themselves healthcare
professionals. Exercise physiologists are healthcare professionals.
You might agree or disagree, but the ASEP organization and its professional
infrastructure have established it as the professional organization of
exercise physiologists. It became clear a few years before the founding
of ASEP that the American College of Sports Medicine, the Cooper Institute,
the International Sports Science Association, and the National Strength
and Coaching Association certifications are not “exercise physiology” certifications.
In fact, it does not matter whether different organizations, like the Aerobics
and Fitness Association of America, have issued thousands, even 160,000
certifications as reported by AFAA, the certifications are essentially
useless in terms of a stable, sustainable career in healthcare. Actually,
what it does, including certifications by the National Federation of Professional
Trainers, is increase expectations as though those who are certified have
a serious future in healthcare.
Certification that fails to match up to traditional steps towards professionalism,
like nursing or physical therapy, will not provide the career options and
financial stability that is expected. Even the writing of standards
to try and demonstrate some assurance of accountability outside of the
academic setting will not evolve with respect or acceptance by the public.
The ASEP leadership understands this thinking. While there is no
conflict between exercise physiologists and personal trainers, there is
a serious difference between the two (particularly, in the areas of academic
preparation and professional philosophy that separates the two).
Exercise physiologists can in their practice connect with their clients
on a one-to-one basis (i.e., through personal advice, consultation, cardiovascular
and other testing, and so forth). This is not true with personal
trainers. In other words, the public will not accept personal trainers
supervising cardiovascular testing.
The bottom line is that it is up to the exercise physiologists, particularly
the ASEP board certified exercise physiologists, to define what they do
in the public sector and how their future is changing through ASEP, accreditation,
and professionalism. ASEP exercise physiologists have defined their
standards of practice; a practice that is linked to certification that
underpins exactly what they do in health, fitness, rehabilitation, and
athletics. Why settle for anything less when it comes to a career
in healthcare as an exercise physiologist?
Quick and Dirty Research
Research is an engaging and, often times, complex process that takes
time and commitment to many different facets of data collection, statistical
analyses, and manuscript preparation (not to mention hours spent thinking
about submission, rejection, and/or acceptance). It is not impossible
to do good research, but it is a challenge. Most published articles
are well done. Some are little more than a purchased product.
The authors are not going to tell you that is the case. Why should
they? Their reputation and job may be adversely influenced by the
truth. So, in short, studies are done as though the authors have
followed the rules of research. The truth is that much of what is
published is not always the best research. To be specific, research
facilitated by large companies that stand to benefit from the sell of their
products may not be good research.
Quick and dirty publishing is research to sell products or an idea.
Authors of these advertisements understand all to well what they are doing.
Most have rationalized their behavior to the point that they actually believe
their lies. It is unfortunate. Everyone is cheapened by the
ease at which big companies are more than glad to hand over money from
their big budgets to get their products advertised with a research theme.
Why? Simply because society has been educated to the obvious.
Straight thinking and ethical thinking goes beyond biased thinking and
for-profit thinking. Society has come to value evidence-based research.
The problem is that there is no quick and easy ride to know whether a supplement
or a drug works as it is advertised to work. Evidence-based ethical
thinking is not about quotes to produce quick sells of products.
It is about whether the product works and, therefore, whether the drug,
for example, is worth taking to deal with a particular disease or dysfunction.
It is about responsible thinking that results in responsible research.
What Are Exercise Physiologists Thinking About?
The answer might surprise readers of the ASEPNewsletter
(i.e., if we knew what they are thinking). I do not know what they
are thinking? Do you? If we knew, how might the information
influence us? Maybe it would not have an influence whatsoever.
Very likely, if exercise physiologists are thinking about anything, they
are thinking about either research projects, money, or how to get athletes
to run faster, jump higher, or lift more weight. Those with the doctorate
degree are more prone to think about research and publishing. Non-doctorate
exercise physiologists are probably thinking about making it, financially
speaking. I wish there was a designated exercise physiologist who
would gather information about other exercise physiologists to know what
they are thinking. Such a person and the information would add to
understanding whether professionalism is valued or not. For certain,
the leadership of the American Society of Exercises Physiologists should
know what exercise physiologists are thinking about. What do you
think? Are you thinking about exercise physiology professionalism,
code of ethics, and standards of practice? Research? Financial
issues? Career opportunities? I wish I knew what you are thinking
about.
Advertising Is All About Money!
Have you thought about advertisements lately? When you see one
or read one, do you believe the information? Could the content be
accurate? What if the companies are dishonest when they advertise
their products? Wow…that would be a first, right! Could people
get hurt or even die? What seems obvious is that no one is evaluating
the accuracy of many advertisements. For example, is the Xenadrine-EFX
‘s thermogenic formula really different from other diet supplements?
Does it really increase metabolism and caloric expenditures [1, 2] as stated
in the Star Magazine [3]? Is Xenadrine-EFX the #1 diet supplement
in the world because it works or is it the money that Cytodyne Technologies
has to market the product? Are the citations credible? Are
the statements supported by solid scientific research?
Answers to these questions are critical to understanding products like
Xenadrine-EFX and all other advertising material and marketing brochures
sent out by companies with a lot of money. What if the Xenadrine-EFX
advertising material is nothing more than what the company wants the reader
to know? After all, advertising is about moving a product and making
money. Even drug companies are caught up in making money over integrity.
A recent study of advertising materials and marketing brochures sent out
by drug companies that make medicines concluded that 94% of the information
in them had no basis in scientific evidence [4]. Who would have imagined
major medical drug companies pushing products with false advertisements?
Right! If only 6% of the medical brochures in the study contained
statements that were scientifically supported by relevant research articles,
what do the sports and dietary supplement companies have to do lose?
Athletes should not take supplements or drugs to enhance their performance
even if either does not work. It is an ethical problem, but who cares
about ethics? Should we care about the quality of drug advertising
material? You bet we should. Should we care about the advertising
material of most sports supplements and the distorted images that speaks
to athletics? Without question, we should care. Exercise physiologists,
in particular, must be concerned with the misrepresentation of the assumed
benefits, the decreased discussion about side effects, and especially the
suppressed literature that fails to support the advertisements. We
should care about putting athletes’ health at risk. We should care
that big drug companies are paying for medical brochures that bear little
to know direct relationship to the actual truth of the drugs they market.
We should care.
References
1. Kalman, D. (2002). Efficacy of a commercial green tea extract/caffeine-based
product to increase basal metabolism in healthy adults. Interaction
of Physical Activity & Nutrition. Poster Abstract, p. 45.
2. Journal of the American College of Nutrition. (2002). The
metabolic effects of commercial green tea extract/caffeine-based dietary
supplement in healthy normal volunteers. Vol. 21, No. 5, p. 488.
3. Star Magazine. (March 8, 2004). I lost an incredible 52 lbs
and kept it off with Xenadrine-EFX! p. 57.
4. Tuffs, A. (2004). Only 6% of drug advertising material is supported
by evidence. British Medical Journal. 328:485:7438-7485.
Taking Vitamin Supplements: Get Serious!
Can you believe that the person standing or sitting next to you is
taking vitamins and combinations of dietary and/or sports supplements?
Do you think that the person has read the ingredients in the hundreds of
containers? Are there substances in the thousands of products that
should not be in the products, and could the products be dangerous to the
human body? The short answer is “yes” to both questions. Then,
why does a person with an interest in health and fitness start supplementing
his or her exercise with unregulated products? There are no doubt
dozens of reasons. Unfortunately, at the top of the list is the suggestion
to take a multi-vitamin/mineral supplement by personal trainers.
Personally, I do not believe that trainers have any business pushing vitamins
and/or supplements on to their clients. They have no idea what substances
are in the supplement. They have no idea whether the substances are
safe or what side effects may be produced. Trainers need to recognize
their limitations. They need to stay with what they know. This
is a serious issue that has legal implications, particularly if the supplement
makes an existing health problem worse. Personal trainers should
stay with the basics. That’s right. Encourage clients to run,
jump, and lift weights in a safe environment. Stop pushing supplements!
This is the most important 21st century message personal trainers should
take to heart. It is time to be faithful to doing what is right for
the client not for the trainer’s pocket book.
Imagine you are looking across a gym from one end to the next and all
you can see are gym rats mining their business of flattering their clients
while peaking the conversation towards building their personal supplement
business (such as the Sports Supplements and Winners Club). Look
at the clients working out, thinking they are getting the right message
and not realizing the graveyard of unethical practices used on them.
Here is a picture of something less than professional. Rather than
push supplements and drugs and suck up to those who think it is right to
do so, walk away from it. Do not participate in the sweet music of
fraud and misinformation. It is not a self-portrait that you will
want to look back on years from now. Get serious and run the intruders
from the gyms. Do so after reading this piece. Rubbish!
Did I hear you say, Rubbish! Well, I say to you: “You are a crooked
thinker; you, the gym rat who is money first above everything else. Where
is your concern for the client? There is choice to be made.
It has to be made. Or Mr. Personal Trainer you will lose everything
when the public wakes up to your motives, which leaves me to say:
Get Serious. Take the advice of one of your own, David P. Hoyt [1].
Reference
1. Hoyt, D.P. (2004). Are there stimulants in my vitamins? Personal
Fitness Professional. Vol. 6, No. 3, 30-33.
Why is Statistical Significance Important?
Do you have any idea why the scientific method is important?
This is one of many questions posed in courses about exercise physiology
research and statistics. Students are taught to understand the probability
of a treatment effect. For example, does a sports massage prior to
submaximal exercise increase running efficiency? They know that if
one or more of the dependent variables (especially oxygen consumption)
meet statistical significance (P<0.05), then the treatment is directly
related to the findings. If the findings do not reach statistical
significance, then, in the case of the sports massage, it would be inappropriate
to concluded that a sports massage prior to exercise increases running
economy.
Of course, there are a considerable number of concerns and issues that
surround good research. At times, there may be no significance (no
difference) between the control and the treatment data, and still uncertainty
exists. In simple terms if there is no statistically significant
difference between treatment and control data, then it is wrong to describe
the data as if there is a significant difference (P>0.05). As an
example, the following statements were taken from an article published
in the Journal of Physical Therapy Science: (1) “The larger cardiac
output and stroke volume in the supine posture indicated the relative importance
of cardiac pump, compared to muscle pump, during mild exercise.”
The naïve reader may not appreciate that cardiac output and stroke
volume were only increased at 150W (P<0.05), not at 50W (P>0.05).
(2) “The lower a-vO2 diff in the supine posture indicates a relative ineffectiveness
of oxygen supply by the blood flow in the exercising muscles.” Yet,
according to Table 1, page 23, a-vO2 diff was not statistically significant
between sitting and supine at rest, 50W, or 150W. (3) “The blood
pressure in the present supine position was, however, lower than in the
sitting posture despite a lower perfusion pressure in the exercising muscles.”
Here again, there were no statistically significant changes in blood pressure.
(4) “The lower TPR in the supine position agrees with this explanation,
since the TPR is largely influenced by sympathetic nervous activity.”
Still, there were no statistically significant changes in TPR. Therefore,
TPR is not lower! (5) “The higher HR in the supine posture…..”
Heart rate was unchanged across the three conditions.
The reporting of the data as if statistical significance had been found
is unsettling. College professors should make a concerted effort
to incorporate and report on such information in class. They should
place emphasis on its potential effect of serious misinformation when no
existing effect of treatment is evident. In other words, to demonstrate
whether there are physiological differences between exercising in the supine
position versus the upright position is to find statistical significance.
Investigators who describe the data as if to argue on behalf a treatment
without the findings having met significance are doing an injustice to
the scientific method. This is particularly important because not
all students understand the need for responsible accounting of research
data.
References
1. Miyashita, S., Haruna, Y., Suzuki, Y., and Gunji, A. (1995). Effects
of posture on cardiorespiratory responses during mild exercise. Journal
of Physical Therapy Science. 7:21-25. pp. 23-24.
Online Publishing
The leadership of ASEP has worked hard at publishing important and
relevant articles in the Journal of Exercise Physiologyonline
and the Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline.
Understandably, exercise physiologists know more about research and athletics
than they do about professionalism and what it takes to build a profession
of exercise physiology. This is the consensus at least several of
my students have shared with me. Hence, they expect the academic
exercise physiologists to continue publishing in JEPonline
more so than in PEPonline. From
their point of view, it is a matter of time before more exercise physiologists
will seek out PEPonline to publish
their ideas, issues, and concerns. Clearly, the JEPonline
electronic journal is a success, and Dr. Robert Robergs, the Editor-in-Chief,
deserves a lot of praise and positive comments for his hard work. JEPonline
has become so popular that recently the ASEP leadership discussed a small
budget for handling the peer review and online publishing process.
The PEPonline journal is not so
popular. There are no academic exercise physiologists, except for
a few, interested in publishing online manuscripts about professionalism.
This is likely to change in a big way in the future. The need to
talk about ethics, standards of practice, teaching strategies, credible
certifications, professional development guidelines, and hundreds of other
important topics exists. The hope is that academic exercise physiologists
will get the message that research and professional development have always
gone hand in hand together. Trust in this understanding is also why
I started the Journal of Professional Exercise Physiology (JPEP).
The Editor-in-Chief is soon-to-be Dr. Jesse Pittsley.
Apparently the “establishment” simply fails to get it. They fail
to understand that the old paradigm (i.e., exercise physiology defined
as the study of acute and chronic changes with regular exercise) is the
old way of thinking about exercise physiology. And, in many respects,
this is probably why they still hold tightly to the notion that the print
copy forum is the only road to credible scientific publications.
What a mistake? The concept of free online journals has been at the
forefront of ASEP since 1997. There are no hidden agendas.
There is no cost to the authors for the publication of their work.
There are no industry sponsors of any type or kind that may influence what
is published or how data are interpreted. Advertisements do not drive
the ASEP Web site or its journals, and yet the ASEP online journals have
survived and gained in popularity and credibility. The objective
is simple to understand: ASEP promotes intellectual growth and opportunity
and, therefore, ultimately enriches the ASEP society of exercise physiologists
in many ways.
Open Peer Review
Given the relatively few authors who have submitted articles to PEPonline,
as Editor-in-Chief, and founder of the electronic journal, I decided several
months ago to go public with the review process. Since my articles
represent the bulk of the publications on a monthly basis, since I have
an invested interest in the professionalization of exercise physiology,
and since I believe there must be a “professionalism” journal that is valued
as highly as a “research” journal within the context of any profession,
I have stopped asking for help with the PEPonline
journal. This means that I publish what I believe is critical to
an increased understanding of what is exercise physiology and who is an
exercise physiologist along with dozens of topics that are important to
any emerging profession.
The current online publishing model makes it easy to publish in PEPonline.
As Editor-in-Chief, I will publish any manuscript submitted to PEPonline
without changing the content per se. All any editor asks of those
who submit their work is that the manuscript must be professional.
If it is and even should the content disagree with the ASEP perspective,
it will be published. If the manuscript is not professional, it will
not be published. This is still consistent with an open peer review
process. I have no intention of suppressing dissemination of thoughts
and/or ideas that disagree with the steps taken to professionalize exercise
physiology through the ASEP perspective. If professionally written,
the question of accountability falls completely upon the author(s).
This move to open peer review does not suggest at all that integrity
of the editorial process was (or ever has been) a problem. This is
not a case of failing to accept a manuscript to have it surface in a comparable
journal. Point in fact; there is no comparable journals to PEPonline.
Rather, as Editor-in-Chief, I’m doing what seems reasonable to increase
the number of manuscripts published on PEPonline
other than just my manuscripts. I believe this is important in hopes
of publishing more diverse ideas and to increase public access to the online
forum. There is no way that exercise physiology is going to get better
without more input from other professionals in the field.
There is no charge to the author(s) for publishing his or her work.
I am optimistic that new thoughts will emerge to guide us out of the 20th
century thinking about exercise physiology into the 21st century thinking
of exercise physiologists as healthcare professionals. There is a
growing momentum among many non-doctorate exercise physiologists in support
for the ASEP vision, perspective, and 21st century thinking. Much
has been done in just 6 years, and yet there is still much more to be done.
Second Hand Smoke: Bad Stuff, Right? Maybe Not!
Exercise physiologists are interested in finding ways to live a healthier
and disease-free life. Professors lecture on the benefits of exercise
to their students. They act as role models for the healthcare community.
Their research confirms the benefits of regular exercise. At times,
they also unintentionally embrace ideas prematurely. For example,
it was just several decades ago that exercise at high intensity was encouraged
more so than low to moderate intensity [1]. This was true for post-myocardial
infarction patients, too. It made no sense then, and it certainly
does not make sense today. Then, there was the shared belief that
elevated low-density cholesterol “caused” coronary artery disease [2].
Of course, many exercise physiologists talked bad about second hand smoke
without evaluating the literature [3].
Regarding second hand smoke (also called environmental tobacco smoke
and passive smoking), have you heard exercise physiologists talk hard and
dirty about the long-term mortality from tobacco related disease?
Have you thought about whether they arguments are sound? Are exercise
physiologists objective in their dissemination of the information about
lifestyle matters? Answers to these questions might surprise you.
As an example, consider “summary statement” the 2003 publication of a scientific
manuscript by Enstrom and Kabat [4] in the British Medical Journal:
“The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco
smoke and tobacco related mortality….the association between exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer
may be considerably weaker than generally believed.” [4, p. 2].
As contributing editor to the ASEPNewsletter,
I am not for smoking or necessarily against smoking. Life is rather
short to live exactly as science would dictate. Maybe the best we
can do is live life to the best we can. Life is complex and poorly
understood on many fronts. As Richard Smith commented in the August
30 issue of the British Medical Journal [5, p. 1], “Scientific truths
are all provisional. Most of science falls away as new paradigms
emerge.”
References
1. Boone, T. (1986). Exercise prescription for cardiac patients: reasons
for concerns. Sports Medicine. 3:157-164.
2. Boone, T. (1992). Coronary artery disease predictions from epidemiological
research: Some critical reflections. The MAHPER Journal. 12:20-24.
3. Boone, T. (2001). Using criticial thinking to better understand
the health concerns of passive smoking. Professionalization of Exercise
Physiologyonline. Vol. 3, No. 2 [Online].
http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/CriticalThinkingPassiveSmoking.html
4. Enstrom, J.E. and Kabat, G.C. (2003). Environmental tobacco smoke
and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98.
British Medical Journal. Vol. 326 (May 17): 7398: 1057. [Online].
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/105
5. Smith, R. (2003). Passive smoking: comment from the editor. British
Medical Journal. Vol. 327 (August 30): 7413: 505. [Online]. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7413/505
The Power of Titles
As I sat with my son at Barnes and Nobles a few days ago, I overheard
a person close to us talking about titles. What’s in a title, and
why it is important. It caught my attention because I, too, have
talked about titles in my professional development course at The College
of St. Scholastica. I’ve written about titles, too [1]. Understanding
the importance of using the right title and having a professional title
is essential to a share vision. The cost of the title is hard work
and dedication. To know that an exercise physiologist does not understand
the power of a title is a poignant example of failure to embrace change.
Nurses have a title. Physical therapists have a title. Lawyers
have a title. It should be obvious that a title is linked to a profession.
The reasoning behind this thinking is based on decades of work towards
professionalism by each of the three professions mentioned. In the
case of exercise physiology, the academic community has not kept up with
the overall assessment of the mess their students find themselves.
It is easy to think that everything is fine, but I rejected that idea a
decade ago. Unsound reasoning that states a title is not important
is a fallacy. Exercise physiologists, as a community of healthcare
professionals, must read about professionalism wherever they can find information
about values, commitments, convictions, and demonstrate the passion to
express, explain, and expand exercise physiology from the fitness “gym
rat” personal training point of view to the healthcare perspective.
Reference
1. Boone, T. (1999). What's In a Title? Professionalization of Exercise
Physiologyonline. Vol. 2, No. 1 [Online].
http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/fldr/terms6.htm
Advertisements
Position Information
Abington Memorial Hospital
Abington, PA
Job Title: Exercise Physiologist - Part-time
Job Type: (Full-Time, Part-Time, Internship, or Contract):
Part-time
Job Location: (City and State) Abington, PA
Job Description: (Duties and Responsibilities) Part-time position
available in Rehab Medicine. Individual will prepare patients and equipment
for treatment and assist therapists in administering treatment to patients
of varying ages ranging from infancy through late adulthood.
Job Qualifications: (Experience and education required) Bachelor's
degree in Exercise Science or related field required. Must have flexible
schedule to work morning or afternoon shifts. Experience preferred, along
with ACLS and ACSM.
Response Information: Please write this in paragraph form. Include
any or all of the following information: Company Name, Address, Contact
Name, Phone, Fax, E-Mail, and Beeper. Abington Memorial Hospital is a 508-bed
community teaching hospital and comprehensive regional health center located
in the Philadelphia suburbs. AMH offers a highly competitive salary and
benefits package. On-site child care facility now open!
Apply online at www.amh.org/
E-mail: aobrien@amh.org
or send resume to:
ATO, Personnel Department
Abington Memorial Hospital
1200 Old York Road
Abington, PA 19001
Fax: 215-481-4289
Equal Opportunity Employer
