David Driscoll whose credentials in Exercise Science and Nutrition are impressive was more focused on debating the statements :
“Should the CHEK Principles form the basis of Personal Training?”
“That CHEK Philosophies should not be taught exclusively at Fitness First.”
“And that CHEK Training philosophies are not based on scientific evidence.”
David’s overall position statement was “should the CHEK principles form the basis of your personal training? To which he argued that they should not. His 90 minute presentation consisted of a summary of the scientific method and in particular the hierarchy of evidence with double blind controlled studies published in gold standard peer reviewed journals as the highest level of truth. David described what he called his “Driscoll Scale” as a way to evaluate evidence based on this hierarchy.
He then went on to critique Paul’s work in particular “How to Eat Move and Be Healthy”, touching on topics such as Weston A Price, Metabolic Typing and Pottenger’s cats using his “Driscoll Scale”. David also noted, despite what was publicised, he believed he was not there to present his own philosophy or system and offered no alternative to the approach presented by Paul.
David reminded us a number of times that he was not the elected representative of the scientific community and if he said things people did not agree with, this doesn’t mean all science is bad. He stated that his objective was not to have people leave Paul and follow him, but rather to make people question where their ideas came from and the evidence to support them.
David urged Paul to conduct more research. Suggesting that if he could provide evidence to science based organisation worldwide supporting his approaches, his work would have a greater impact.
During question time David was challenged for not providing an alternate philosophy or system, whilst supporters of David questioned Paul as to how the debate would influence his work in the future.
Paul Chek spent 90 minutes giving an overview of his philosophies and illustrating the practical results from years of applying and refining his principles. The audience’s energy levels were very high and attentive while Paul spoke, but were rather subdued listening to Dave Driscoll.
After lunch the session was meant to consist of point /counterpoint debate on topics that either speaker could raise. A real opportunity was missed to engage the topics but a true debate did not occur. David Driscoll felt more at ease with attacking Paul Chek’s comments rather than debating them. It was interesting that he was actually online googling support material when Paul was speaking.
Here is a comment from Paul CHEK reflecting on the event:
"Any boxer, or race car driver, for that matter, knows all too well what it is like to have people shout commands from outside the ring, or track-side, knowing full-well that such people are free of the reality of experience afforded only to the boxers and racers who fully participate. I offered Dave Driscoll a chance to offer all of us a means of learning by sharing what he would deem a better way than the C.H.E.K system of holistic health; his working philosophy if-you-will. He did not have a philosophy that was more worthy of sharing than his complaints, which to me, amounted to nothing more than ringside or track-side commentary, and indeed, the very kind of commentary that comes from those who've never dawned the gloves and entered the ring, nor buckled a five-point harness within the confines of a roll cage as a necessary means of surviving an honest exploration of the edges of self.
While Dave was so kind as to share what he referred to as the "Driscoll Scale" of scientific validity, in which peer reviewed journals and critically controlled scientific explorations set the precedence for him, he at one-and-the-same time demonstrated to all that he was very willing to make judgements about the CHEK programs based on so-called "scientific evidence" for which he had little to no understanding of what-so-ever; for example, he cited EMG studies suggesting that my approach to core conditioning was incorrect, yet, he did not know anything about surface or fine wire EMG explorations, not the benefits, nor the pitfalls.
Dave showed me, and everyone in attendance, that the “Driscoll Scale” was merely a theory, an unproven idea; if it was other than mere theory, he would have held himself to his own stated standard of value discrimination with regard to criticism of another's life work and offering. As I listened to his criticisms, I was reminded yet again of the late Mell Siff, who went to great effort to deface the C.H.E.K teachings by doing such things as publishing spelling mistakes from my course manuals on his Supertraining forum; from which he expounded the idea that because I couldn't spell, I couldn't know or do anything in the worlds of health care and exercise! At least Dave Driscoll was more honest with his criticisms than Mel Siff, who declined all of my offers to debate me in public, after all, anyone can box, and anyone can race a car from the safety of a keyboard, but a few of us are willing to fully engage in life as a reality, not just a theory. While I was disappointed that Dave Driscoll forfeited the opportunity to offer us something better, something other than mere criticism, I am impressed that he was brave enough to expose himself to the hundreds of people live and the thousands more coming to see him on film who will see exactly what Dave looks like when put on the Driscoll scale!"
In the future, I welcome any debate challenges from anyone who genuinely has constructive criticism backed by a better way that emerges not as theory, but by a practice that has legitimately helped others at least as much as the very methods they come to denounce!”
At the end of the day it was a highly entertaining event that stirred emotions from the audience regardless of their affiliations, reinforcing the passion of the people that attended this debate.
A Ballot was circulated at the end of the day however only 85 were returned.
Debate Survey results:
A total of 85 survey forms returned on the day and the results were as follows.
1. Do you agree that the:
a) CHEK philosophies aren't based on the best/highest quality evidence?[i]
Yes - 21% No - 79%
b) CHEK philosophies aren't what should be considered best practices for PT's?[ii]
Yes - 20% No - 80%
c) CHEK philosophies should not be taught exclusively at Fitness First?[iii]
Yes - 62% No - 38%
2. I vote that the philosophical position on Health and Wellness as stated by:
|
David Driscoll = 6%
Paul Chek = 73%
Mix of both = 21%
Is most likely to achieve the best results that clients/patients pay health and exercise professionals to achieve.
|
 |
[i] Editors notes: The statements create a double negative.
Restated below in the positive for clarification.
[i]CHEK philosophies are based on the best/highest quality evidence?
Agree 79% Disagree 21%
[ii] CHEK philosophies are what should be considered best practices for PT's?
Agree 80% Disagree 20%
[iii] CHEK philosophies should be taught exclusively at Fitness First?
Agree 38% Disagree 62%
Comment: The point was addressed by Fitness First National PT Manager Dominic Dos Remedios that the Training philosophies actually taught in Fitness First are not exclusive to any one
.gif)
