August 4, 1999James Whitehead
401 W. Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202-3233Re: Phone conference between ACSM and ASEP
Cc: Tommy Boone, Barry Franklin, Paul Thompson
Dear James:
Tommy and I wanted to officially thank you for the phone conference that occurred between you, Tommy Boone, Barry Franklin and myself, as official representatives of ACSM and ASEP, at 12 noon (mountain time) on Tuesday, July 20, 1999. As has been clear from the efforts of ASEP to communicate with ACSM for the last two years, ASEP has invited support from ASCM for ASEP driven efforts to professionalize exercise physiology.
My summary of the meeting topics and accomplishments are as follows.
1. Explanation of how and why ASEP was founded, and what the present and future objectives of ASEP are (Rob Robergs and Tommy Boone). Content of this explanation included the need for exercise physiologists to have a) a professional identity, b) improved and consistent standards of education, c) certification that assesses what exercise physiologists are actually trained to know and do, d) responsibility to provide reasonable security in future employment for graduates who may spend more than $60,000 to obtain their degree, and e) related issues of state licensure that will help all aspects of professional existence.
2. Assessment of the “power” and accomplishments of ACSM in a diverse number of aspects – publications, annual meetings, multidisciplinary nature, certifications, clinical exercise physiology registry, etc. (Barry Franklin)
3. ASEP response to the work of ACSM and why ASEP is needed. The response was directed at the need for exercise physiologists to represent themselves via their own organization (ASEP). In addition, the multidisciplinary nature of ACSM was incongruent with the needs of an exercise physiology professional organization, and no ACSM certification assesses the breadth of the knowledge and competencies of exercise physiologists. In fact, the ability of non-exercise science trained individuals to receive ACSM certifications detracts from the need for having exercise science degrees. (Rob Robergs).
4. The present accomplishments of ASEP (Tommy Boone). These were explained to be a large internet-based presence, two on-line journals, numerous committees, an expected final draft of nation-wide program accreditation by October 1999, and continued efforts towards a nation-wide certification program and state specific licensure.The focus of the discussion then changed to reflect the need of ACSM to better understand the needs and attitudes of exercise physiologists. The discussion then ended due to the need for Barry Franklin to complete work-related duties.
Tommy and I wanted to also express additional content that we were unable to discuss due to the relatively short duration of the meeting, and the focus of the discussion on the role of ACSM in attending to the needs of exercise physiologists. If ACSM and ASEP are to work in a mutually respectful manner, then there are a couple of realizations and events that need to occur so that a professional interaction can occur between our organizations.
1. It was clear from the discussion that ACSM wanted to learn more of what ASEP is doing. However, the purpose for acquiring this knowledge was not stated. This is very disturbing to us, as ASEP is the professional organization of exercise physiologists, is growing at an impressive rate, and addresses the professional needs of exercise physiologists in areas that ACSM is currently not doing, and because of ACSM missions and objectives, cannot do. The growth of ASEP is expected to continue, and even increase in the future once accomplishments such as nation-wide program accreditation and certification are operative. Based on the presence of ASEP and the growth of ASEP membership, there is already a strong and clear voice from exercise physiologists in the US that ASEP is needed and currently working on the correct issues to improve all aspects of the professional existence of exercise physiologists.
ASEP represents the professional needs of exercise physiologists, and ACSM, as a national sports medicine organization, needs to respect this. Such respect needs to be akin to that given to the other professions that contribute to sports medicine such as the American Dietetics Association, the American Physical Therapy Association, and the numerous medical professions. It is the responsibility of ASEP to attend to the certification, academic standards, licensure and all other professional needs of exercise physiologists. If ACSM is not prepared to recognize this and support ASEP in these endeavors, then ACSM is not treating ASEP and exercise physiologists with the professional respect they deserve.
2. Barry Franklin mentioned several times that ACSM and ASEP need to work together, and that if this happens, tremendous achievements can be made. We agree with this statement, but the phrase, “work together” needs to be clarified. Based on the content of item 1 above, we propose the following.
a) That ACSM publicly acknowledge the existence and support for ASEP and all it’s functions.
b) That ACSM encourage exercise physiologists to support ASEP driven programs for program accreditation, certification and state specific licensure.
c) That ASEP encourage exercise physiologists to support ACSM (we are currently doing this).I would like to have an official response by ACSM on these three issues by October 1. Such a deadline serves as an incentive to encourage a response by ACSM. Such a response will allow ASEP to provide official evidence of how ACSM views ASEP when working on current and future initiatives, and allows ASEP to give feedback to all members and exercise physiologists within the US of the present “atmosphere” between ACSM and ASEP.
Once the above three items have been addressed, then the accomplishments mentioned by Barry Franklin can be achieved. Some of these accomplishments could be as follows;
a) A more organized contribution of exercise physiologists to ACSM functions, such as the exercise testing guidelines handbook, health and fitness journal, and regional and national meetings.
b) Improvements in the regional ACSM meetings by incorporating ASEP State Chapters and their involvement in each of education, research and licensure.
c) Establishing a consortium of professionals from all professions in the fitness, sports and allied health area to better delineate employment functions. For example, ACSM could function as a vital arbitrator to allow a “fit” between the scope of practice of each profession. This has obvious immediate needs in clinical exercise physiology.
d) Sharing continuing education credits for individuals who attend ACSM and ASEP meetings.In summary, ASEP was enthusiastic about the phone meeting, and remains encouraged by the hope that ACSM and ASEP may be able to work in a mutually respectful climate in the near future. Nevertheless, unless ACSM is willing to recognize ASEP and support ASEP functions by not duplicating efforts in any initiative that improves the profession of exercise physiology, it will be clear that ACSM does not want to foster such an atmosphere. This circumstance would be detrimental to ACSM and ASEP, as well as all exercise physiologists in the US.
Sincerely,
Robert Robergs, Ph.D., FASEP
President, ASEP 1998’99
Director: The Center For Exercise and Applied Human Physiology
Phone: (505) 277-2658; FAX: (505) 277-9742; Email: rrobergs@unm.edu