I've come into a dillema. I think most people agree that high reps really don't "tone" a muscle, and that totally destroying a client during a workout probably isn't the best idea. However, it seems that people love the idea of those two concepts being integrated into their sessions, and if they're not totally wiped out, then they feel like you didn't train them hard enough or they didn't get their moneys worth. Now I'm all for a good hard workout, but at what point do you do what they think they want for a workout, and at what point do you do what is best for the client?
__________________
“I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.” Bruce Lee
My trainer never compromises his philosophy as far as I can tell. If I don't like it, I can leave. He probably loses some buiness that way but I have to think he goes to bed happier at night....
I don't think you even have to be so rough with them as to present that choice. You're the professional... The onus is on you to educate your clients. When you know Kung Fu, you don't have to tell people... They just sense (from some invisible cues) that you know your shit and don't question you.
You need to be clear from the beginning. Tell them what's what, and explain that it's how you do things. This should be clear BEFORE they sign up with you. If they resist, explain it a few more times, and stick to your guns. Even make a bet with them: if they do it your way for 6 weeks and don't get any results, then you'll do it their way! Or just tell them "this is how it is. if you want something else, go to someone else". It's your business to run.
One thing I use on clients that bring up the desire to be "wiped out". I ask them this, "If I told you to hold my duffel bag over your head and jog in place for the hour, you'd be totally annihilated. But that's not what you're paying me for, is it?"
On a few occasions with clients that really want to get their sweat on, I've knocked off 10-15 seconds from all their rest periods. It still sticks almost exactly to the original but they get a little more "wiped".
Things like this are a dance. If you are being totally rational it is negotiations, but when you consider the emotion, non-rational things we all bring to the conversation, then 'dance' is the word. Wish I had figured it out earlier.
In the end, what the client ultimately wants is results and that is what he/she and everyone that hears about you through them is going to judge you by. If they get substandard results because you give them the program that they want rather than the program that they need, not only are they getting shortchanged in the long run (not your fault, theirs) but it is you that they are going to blame and your reputation that is likely to suffer.
I think you can try a compromise at first while you try to educate the client on why they need to be doing certain things and in certain ways. If they don't come around, and you are in a position to do so, then fire them as a client before the lack of results from a program of their design damages your reputation.
In the meantime, try giving them what they think they want while trying to stay as close to what you know they need to be doing. Perhaps your normal programming with some higher rep finishers to give them the feeling that they are trashed but making sure it is something they can recover adequately from. Perhaps something like the leg matrix at the end of your normal workout?
If I get a client like that I always explain to them that any meat head can blow them out, and that it is not the measure of a good trainer. Explaining CNS recovery and showing them how you are calculating what lifts they do and how much makes them partners with you on their own program.
I think that as trainers, part of our job is to be able to read our clients' personalities, not just physically asses them. Obviously with each client there are things that they like and dislike to do, and unfortuately the things they dislike to do are usually those that we know they need the most. However, if we take the attitude of "I know what's best for you and if you don't like it tough" we will have a short career. One of the reasons that this is such a great field to work in is that there are endless paths to each goal. As long as you stay creative and open minded in your program designs there is no reason why you can't give a client what you know they need and what they want at the same time.
Making some comprimises in a workout plan doesn't have to mean that you are giving up your integrity as a trainer. At the end of the day we still are a service industry and you know that those people are better off with you blending them a program that meets both your and their expectations, rather than them getting bored with you and going off to Jonny Meathead who will "kick their butt" and end up doing more harm than good.
If I get a client like that I always explain to them that any meat head can blow them out, and that it is not the measure of a good trainer. Explaining CNS recovery and showing them how you are calculating what lifts they do and how much makes them partners with you on their own program.
This is what my trainer did for me when I first started with him. He reiterates it now and then for me so that I feel comfortable with what we are doing. Sometimes it dosn't seem like we are doing much in our sessions but the results speak for the work that we are doing. I am learning to appreciate the fact that I can work with less intesity and get such great results.
I don't think you even have to be so rough with them as to present that choice. You're the professional... The onus is on you to educate your clients. When you know Kung Fu, you don't have to tell people... They just sense (from some invisible cues) that you know your shit and don't question you.
Werd.
If I ever have a client complain, then Im more than willing to take their asses back to the squat rack and go heavier than they did that day.
__________________
"The strongest steel goes through the hottest fires."-Anonymous
"When you begin to believe nothing is heavy, all weights become light." -Rossbow
"Just remember, somewhere there is a little Chinese girl warming up with your max."-Jim Convroy
"It's a round hole, dammit. Everyone fits."--Anonymous Mod at Strengthmill
In addition to what others have said I like the idea of finishers or 5 minutes of arm work at the end of the client desires it, and it doesn't impact their ability to recover as far as I've experienced.
Programming in density circuits when appropriate, KB work, bands etc... keeps it fresh and fun for the client and the trainer and gets results.
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
I think that as trainers, part of our job is to be able to read our clients' personalities, not just physically asses them. Obviously with each client there are things that they like and dislike to do, and unfortuately the things they dislike to do are usually those that we know they need the most. However, if we take the attitude of "I know what's best for you and if you don't like it tough" we will have a short career. One of the reasons that this is such a great field to work in is that there are endless paths to each goal. As long as you stay creative and open minded in your program designs there is no reason why you can't give a client what you know they need and what they want at the same time.
Making some comprimises in a workout plan doesn't have to mean that you are giving up your integrity as a trainer. At the end of the day we still are a service industry and you know that those people are better off with you blending them a program that meets both your and their expectations, rather than them getting bored with you and going off to Jonny Meathead who will "kick their butt" and end up doing more harm than good.
I've come into a dillema. I think most people agree that high reps really don't "tone" a muscle, and that totally destroying a client during a workout probably isn't the best idea. However, it seems that people love the idea of those two concepts being integrated into their sessions, and if they're not totally wiped out, then they feel like you didn't train them hard enough or they didn't get their moneys worth. Now I'm all for a good hard workout, but at what point do you do what they think they want for a workout, and at what point do you do what is best for the client?
That's why you have to sit them down at the beginning and explain to them what can and can't be done with certain types of training.
Basically, you have to cut through the BS and give it to them straight (in a way that won't scare them off).
If you explain it well, they will agree with you by default and basically give you free license to do whatever you want. If they put up resistance later on, always cite their initial agreement and they will tend to fall back in line (most of the time).
Feel free to name some specific client goals/training plans and the dilemna's that you're having with them. I'll help you brainstorm a solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Depalma2002
In the end, what the client ultimately wants is results and that is what he/she and everyone that hears about you through them is going to judge you by.
I regret to inform you that this is not necessarily true. Results often matter far less than you'd think.
Do you know about the psychological mechanism of rationalization? How people look for rationalizations to justify their actions and purchases after making them? The concept is of major importance to all sales-related fields, including training.
The guy who spends $750 on a 15-pack is going to start looking for rationalizations as soon as he hands over the check. This is simply how people operate.
In terms of personal training, people will use ANY results whatsoever to justify the cost of the program. Very, very few people ever do an honest cost/benefit analysis. Fewer still, when they aren't the ones paying for it (ahem....women).
This is why every good salesman recognizes that convincing someone to buy isn't an intellectual decision...it's emotional.
As we all know, a beginner can make gains on practically any type of program. And even a "bad" trainer knows more than the average gym member at a corporate facility.
Since some results (however minor) are to be expected from any newbie, this means that trainers aren't really being evaluated on their ability to bring results. Instead, the most common element that keeps people coming back is A) the personality of the trainer - usually "fun" or outgoing and B) the creativity/innovation of the workouts.
What's the end result of this? Lots of well-paid trainers who do more socializing with their clients than actual training, and an over-reliance on "gimmicky" training modalities. Can you find a single "celebrity trainer" to whom the above does not apply?
That's the reality of the situation. It kills me, but there's no point in denying it. I'm working day and night to engineer a strategy for "results-based" training that will actually get me paid as well as "babysitter training".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian A.
One of the reasons that this is such a great field to work in is that there are endless paths to each goal.
I disagree with this statement, although you are far from the only one to put it forth. Indeed, it seems to be the mentality of the overwhelming majority of trainers out there.
I believe in taking the most direct path to a goal.
The best way to be a better boxer is to train like a boxer.
The best way to be a better football player is to train like a football player.
The best way to improve your performance is to train like an athlete.
The best way to improve your appearance is to train like a bodybuilder.
Now, at the beginner level, all of these different training modalities overlap. This creates what is called "slop". Slop is the principle which allows beginners to train however they want and still make gains. However, it's obvious that if you ever want get to a higher level and avoid plateauing, you had better narrow your goals and your training correspondingly. As a rule, the more advanced you are, the less "slop" your training program will be able to tolerate (while still making gains). Beginners can get away with having the most slop, and that's why mainstream PT's aren't being fired for their inability to bring results.
If you ditch the slop from the beginning, you will be better off in the long run. So get rid of the "fun stuff" and start training seriously right away. The most valuable thing you can teach a client is to learn how to measure the training by the results it brings, not by the personal enjoyment he gets out of it. If you can do this, then you can actually be a "results-based" trainer and not go broke. I will state flat out, just to dispell any illusions that aspiring PTs may have, that the majority of female clients will NOT respond to this type of "results-based" training program. They simply won't get it. Males will - if you're good. With 95% of women, it simply isn't going to happen, no matter what you do. In these situations, you MUST a babysitter if you don't want to starve.
The vast majority of trainers out there do not possess the ability to take a client from "beginner" to "intermediate" status, or from intermediate to advanced. The only thing they are capable of is basically supervising a person's newbie gains. ANYBODY can make "beginner's gains" - no matter how they train. This does NOT mean that a person whose goals are appearance rather than performance based should train like a boxer, or do "functional training". I look down on this stuff because it degrades the science of the field. Martial arts training or stability ball exercises simply are NOT the most effective means of changing your physique, and this is an objective statement that can be validated scientifically. It is a fact, not an opinion.
There are too many trainers out there who use their pet modalities as "one fits all" solutions. It's shameful and you find this practice absolutely everywhere. The karate guy will tell you that his system is all you need for strength, power, flexibility, etc. The Judo guy will say no, only his will work. The endurance guys will claim that you can be "strong, fit, healthy, etc, etc... if you follow their modality". The martial arts guys will claim that bodyweight exercises will give you all the strength you need.
Let's not dance around the issue: When we make such statements (*if* we make them at all), we are uttering complete bullshit. We are redefining reality and the laws of physiology to conform to our personal biases.
If you are after hypertrophy or "toning", the fastest way to change your appearance, bar none, is to train the way that Ronnie Coleman does. Ronnie Coleman is paid to have the best physique in the world and that is the singular purpose of his training. There is no training modality in existence which can claim to be superior or comparable in that regard.
Similarly, the fastest way to improve your martial arts skills is to train like an MMA fighter.
Want to perform better in soccer? Get off the damn BOSU ball.
Last edited by Allerious : 06-20-2008 at 11:07 PM.
Allerious, why waste your bullshit here on people who know better?
Maybe someone at BB.com is dumb enough to read that shit but not here.
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
If you are after hypertrophy or "toning", the fastest way to change your appearance, bar none, is to train the way that Ronnie Coleman does. Ronnie Coleman is paid to have the best physique in the world and that is the singular purpose of his training. There is no training modality in existence which can claim to be superior or comparable in that regard.
I've never trained, and never will train, any of my clients the way a highly advanced, juiced-to-the-gills bodybuilder trains. That's simply ridiculous.
I've never trained, and never will train, any of my clients the way a highly advanced, juiced-to-the-gills bodybuilder trains. That's simply ridiculous.
I meant that you would incorporate the same principles, not train them using the exact same routine.
In a nutshell, I'm talking about using isolation and exhaustion techniques for hypertrophy. That's how bodybuilders train.
You know, I bet that a lot of trainers would not think twice about giving their clients a routine used by a professional MMA fighter, boxer, or other endurance athlete. Yet, tell them to do the same with Ronnie Coleman's routine, and they balk. What can we learn from this?
We learn that all of this functional / endurance related stuff is mostly noise - not real training. That's why you can do Lance Armstrong's routine and pretend that you are a real athlete. It is entirely a game for some people and the trainers actively encourage it. Sad comment on the state of the industry. It goes without saying that if the type of training you're doing isn't a joke, then an average joe will not be able to use the same routine as a pro athlete. Again, everyone pretends that their pet system is the only training method worth using.
Whoa someone's shot out of a cannon here. However Allerious, you seem to be contradiciting yourself a couple of times in your extensive original rant. You say that you can't stand trainers who lump clients into a one size fits all model, but then you go on to say how
"The best way to be a better boxer is to train like a boxer.
The best way to be a better football player is to train like a football player.
The best way to improve your performance is to train like an athlete.
The best way to improve your appearance is to train like a bodybuilder."
So now you're lumping people into groups as well. So if there is only one way to train a football player than what is it. Please let the strength coaches of the world know so that no one has to waste time being creative in their program design any more. The answer is that thier is no one way to train an athlete or client in any sport or at any level. As I said before there are endless paths to the same goal.
Furthermore, you don't think that Ronnie Coleman looks the way he does because of his training program, do you?? Because if you do then you really have a lot to learn. And I'm not just talking about his pharmacutical help, I'm refering to the fact that he looks the way he does because of his parents. Yes his workout plan and nutrition had a lot to do with it, but if he didn't have the genetics than it none of that would have mattered. The point being, what works for some does not work for all. And don't forget the fact that especially in sports situations you're dealing with a population that has either already been injured, or are at a greater risk for injury. So all you Soccer players out there do yourselves a favor and don't throw away those BOSU's, even if Allerious is standing right there calling you a whuss.
I think it is always best to provide what is best for the client, one of the hardest parts of being a PT can be makeing the client come round to what is actually going to work for them!
Whoa someone's shot out of a cannon here. However Allerious, you seem to be contradiciting yourself a couple of times in your extensive original rant. You say that you can't stand trainers who lump clients into a one size fits all model, but then you go on to say how
"The best way to be a better boxer is to train like a boxer.
The best way to be a better football player is to train like a football player.
The best way to improve your performance is to train like an athlete.
The best way to improve your appearance is to train like a bodybuilder."
So now you're lumping people into groups as well.
I don't think you really understood my point. I have nothing against the practice of lumping similar individuals into the same group. I have a problem with lumping different types of people into the same group just because that group happens to comprise your pet training philosophy.
Boxers should train like boxers. Football players should not be trained the same way as boxers just because their coach happens to favor one training system over the other.
Where's the contradiction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian A.
So if there is only one way to train a football player than what is it. Please let the strength coaches of the world know so that no one has to waste time being creative in their program design any more. The answer is that thier is no one way to train an athlete or client in any sport or at any level. As I said before there are endless paths to the same goal.
There are endless paths to my bathroom at the end of the hall. I can go down the stairs, go out the front door, and walk around my entire house a few times before coming back in, going up the stairs and to the bathroom.
But I don't do that, because it would be dumb. And so is the concept of performing extraneous work and teaching athletes skills that aren't necessary to their sport.
I believe in setting extremely precise goals and taking the most direct path available to reach them.
There can only be ONE "best" of anything, by definition. That doesn't mean the "best" system will be the same for each person. But that system DOES exist, and it is your job to identify it for each person you train. All training methodologies are NOT created equal. It is a fallacy to assume that each school of thought has "something to offer". Some schools offer nothing but failure.
People have no clear system in place for measuring results objectively.
Without benchmarks and rubrics, anybody can look as if they know what they're doing.
There are no benchmarks in this field. There are no controlled, double-blind studies comparing athletes training in one facility to those in another.
All of the "information" you hear in regards to coaching ability is just marketing noise and personal bias, anecdotal word-of-mouth type stuff.
If a coach helps an athlete add 50 lbs to his bench in 30 days, will a single person, anywhere, be asking whether another coach could have done the same in 25 days?
Of course not.
Without firm standards to measure by, science doesn't exist. Without science, all you're left with is marketing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian A.
Furthermore, you don't think that Ronnie Coleman looks the way he does because of his training program, do you?? Because if you do then you really have a lot to learn. And I'm not just talking about his pharmacutical help, I'm refering to the fact that he looks the way he does because of his parents. Yes his workout plan and nutrition had a lot to do with it, but if he didn't have the genetics than it none of that would have mattered. The point being, what works for some does not work for all. And don't forget the fact that especially in sports situations you're dealing with a population that has either already been injured, or are at a greater risk for injury. So all you Soccer players out there do yourselves a favor and don't throw away those BOSU's, even if Allerious is standing right there calling you a whuss.
Yes, I believe that Ronnie Coleman and every other Pro BBer looks the way they do, in large part, due to their training program. I believe this is true for most athletes.
People who are interested in hypertrophy need to train according to the same principles as these guys. Just like anyone who wants to bench as much as possible should train similar to Ryan Kennelly.
That doesn't mean using the same poundages, sets, and reps. It means incorporating the same principles. In the case of bodybuilders, it means doing a lot of isolation and exhaustion work. Let me put it this way: There's no reason a 40 year old housewife can't train according to the same principles as Ronnie Coleman. Ronnie Coleman does bicep curls and tricep extensions to increase the muscle tone in his arms. Mrs. Housewife can and should do the exact same thing.
All training methodologies are NOT created equal. It is a fallacy to assume that each school of thought has "something to offer". Some schools offer nothing but failure.
People have no clear system in place for measuring results objectively.
Without benchmarks and rubrics, anybody can look as if they know what they're doing.
There are no benchmarks in this field. There are no controlled, double-blind studies comparing athletes training in one facility to those in another.
All of the "information" you hear in regards to coaching ability is just marketing noise and personal bias, anecdotal word-of-mouth type stuff.
If a coach helps an athlete add 50 lbs to his bench in 30 days, will a single person, anywhere, be asking whether another coach could have done the same in 25 days?
Of course not.
Without firm standards to measure by, science doesn't exist. Without science, all you're left with is marketing.
This bit is so dead-on that it hurts.
Not me personally, but all the people that build businesses on this concept. Which is a lot of people.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
1) So if there is only one best way to train each different type of client then who determines that. What one person considers the "best way" may be different than someone elses "best way", and the crazy part is the each persons' best way can end up with the same resuls. I understand to a degree where you are coming from by saying that there are basic underlying principles that govern certian training types. However, I think you are looking at it too simplisticly especially since those many of those principles continue to change and evolve based on the research that you seem to think isn't being conducted.
2) Just because a certian program will best achieve a desired result does not mean that you should be doing it to someone.
What about a person that wants to improve their body composition, but has COPD or a heart condition like CAD? Should they be doing heavy leg presses or squats? (BTW if anyone answers yes to that question I hope you have good insurance).
3) You are also assuming a great deal of client compliance. In order for Ronnie Coleman to make gains on his program there is a lot of focus on nutrition and recovery. In the real world you have to consider that the whether or not a house wife will be able to get the proper food intake or rest to recover from a heavy hypertrophy program while she's juggling the kids, cleaning the house and all of the million other things she has to do. The point being that pushing that type of program, even if it is in line with her goals will ultimatly end in failure. She will not be able to keep up, or even worse she will end up tearing a rotator cuff or some other type of injury because you were so worried about body transformation that you didn't spend the time on joint stabilization.
However, I think you are looking at it too simplisticly especially since those many of those principles continue to change and evolve based on the research that you seem to think isn't being conducted.
Not going to nitpick much but I'm curious -- what fundamentals are currently being re-defined by research?
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Well, the real world is "messy", no doubt. The real world is no lab.
That's why most people, in most professions, depend on a great amount of "slop" in order to maintain their credibility. Slop is the general principle which can be summarized as:
"Anything which could reasonably be expected to happen according to well-established physical laws will happen, and anything that can't won't - regardless of the amount of effort put into it."
It's the law of inertia applied to people and events. As a general rule, people who exercise will improve their fitness level in some way. That much can be counted on. If you want to make claims for anything beyond that, you really have to be on your game.
It isn't easy. Nothing is.
Two different programs may bring about the same results, but they won't do it in the same amount of time. The guy who does it faster "wins", in our hypothetical lab setting where performance and results are the only things that count.
I do assume a great deal of client compliance because I see my role as someone who teaches motivated individuals how to attain their best performance. I don't envision myself motivating people who don't want to train in the first place. Let someone else suffer through that. I want to give highly motivated individuals the right tools to succeed, and nothing more.
Not going to nitpick much but I'm curious -- what fundamentals are currently being re-defined by research?
I recently went to an NSCA conference on recovery at UCONN, and based on reasearch that some of the presenters were conducting there were a few classic methods that were being challenged by new evidence. I'm not saying that up will suddenly be down, but look at how far training and what we know about the body has come in the past 15 years. I'm simply saying that if everyone accepted that there is one best way of doing something than we would never have further advancements.
Allerious:
I'm glad to see that you have a real passion for training and getting clients the results they want. I'm sorry if I came across as antagonistic or confontational in my previous posts. Truth is I love a good debate (and I'm a bit sarcastic by nature). Whenever someone presents something to me as black and white I will always argue that there's grey area between.
In actuality I'm partially on your side. In the past couple of year I've trained with a coworker of mine who specializes in body builder style training, and I've achieved the greatest asthetic shape of my life. It took all the disipline I could find to maintain the strict training and nutritional program, but I wanted the best results in the shortest amount of time so I made the comitment. However, although I never looked better in my life, I also never had as many aches and pains. This goes to my earlier point of just because someone can do something, does not nessisarily mean they should or that it's good for them. It's fine for training ourselves if we're willing to do what ever it takes, but when it comes to training others we have an obligation to do what we feel is best for them.
What you consider "slop" is unfortunatly the reality of the real world. In the lab we have the benifit of controling all of the vairables to reach a specific result. I wish that was the way it really worked, but I've worked with clients that defy a physiological explination. One middle aged woman I've worked with could not drop signifcant body fat no matter what we did. I tried every style of training I could find including body building. Now, was she lying to me about what she was eating, possibly. Were there other hormonal factors going on in her body that I couldn't control, I'm sure. Bottom line is that it doesn't allways work the way it's supposed to. And when what's supposed to work doesn't, then you have to get creative and try other things. There may be a theoretical black and white "best path" to a client's goal, but if you lose the client along that path because they are unable or unwilling to stay on that narrow path then the person who adjusts the path to work with a client's variables will always win.
I don't think All was arguing against that their is only one method of doing anything so much trainers getting stuck in a one size fits all mentality or lacking the knowledge to identify that whatever training system they're doing might not match up with what the client desires.
This is why every good salesman recognizes that convincing someone to buy isn't an intellectual decision...it's emotional.
As we all know, a beginner can make gains on practically any type of program. And even a "bad" trainer knows more than the average gym member at a corporate facility.
Since some results (however minor) are to be expected from any newbie, this means that trainers aren't really being evaluated on their ability to bring results. Instead, the most common element that keeps people coming back is A) the personality of the trainer - usually "fun" or outgoing and B) the creativity/innovation of the workouts.
What's the end result of this? Lots of well-paid trainers who do more socializing with their clients than actual training, and an over-reliance on "gimmicky" training modalities. Can you find a single "celebrity trainer" to whom the above does not apply?
That's the reality of the situation. It kills me, but there's no point in denying it. I'm working day and night to engineer a strategy for "results-based" training that will actually get me paid as well as "babysitter training".
I agree with this. I don't necessarily agree with everything you write, but I've been in this industry long enough to witness this time and again.
I have gotten sucked into some of those gimmicky training methods in the past. My initial foray into functional training started with Paul Chek (which should say it all). I quickly found out that I was on the wrong path, and shifted.
I don't think functional training is inherently bad, which you seem to. I think that most individuals who aren't training for athletics should have routines that have carry-over into their everyday lives. It seems pointless to me to put someone who sits on his can all day on a fixed plane machine where he can sit some more.
Although functional training is becoming a bit of a craze and their will be idiots who give it a bad name, overall I think it is a move in the right direction. Philosophically I agree that the best machine a person has is their body. Arthur Jones is the worst thing to have to fitness. So is the treadmill.
I have no idea how you train your clients as I haven't gone through and read all your posts. For all I know you employ the same methods many of us do in here. It's not all about methods like you say though... A trainer who actually cares about their clients and knows how to motive them helps reinforce the client's determination to succeed.
There are a ton of trainers out there who could train circles around me based on their knowledge. I make no claims about being a top-tier trainer. But my success rate has been phenomenal, which is why 21 years later I'm still doing this. I didn't always have great methods, but I always attuned myself to the client and figured out how to motivate them. I've always given them my A-game as they say. 10 years from now I will probably marvel that anyone had success with me back in '08 because of what I will know then, but they do succeed.
I've yet to see anyone in the real world train every client like an MMA fighter, boxer etc... but do see gyms full of trainers using bb-style splits for the housewife or executive that just wants to lose 10lbs.
Show me a housewife that wants to have gunz like Coleman, because I haven't met one.
Despite what it may seem like on teh internetz, in the real world I don't see an overreaction (except Cr@ssfitters) towards the sports specific/strongman training paradigm. The vast majority are stuck back in the Arnold-era with a dollop of bosu crap thrown in.
I agree with JP that getting people up and moving is going to do a whole lot more for most than seated isolation exercises - and it'll be more fun. The number one reason people dislike gyms is that it's boring - because of the preponderance of machine-based training. If someone wants to look and train like a BBer fine, but if their goal is to get lean and muscular then why not incorporate training more like that which Georges St. Pierre is doing (an example of the athletic type alot of guys like).
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
Best for the client or what the client wants..
Linear Mode
