It Bothers Me...*Another Rant

[John Izzo]

This weekend I traveled up to New Hampshire to attend the Symposium of Strength being offered by Next Level Performance, LLC. I thought the guys did a great job with this seminar and I can definitely see it rival other 1-Day Learning Seminars in the Northeast in the years to come.

One a side note, I want to thank those of you who came up to me and introduced yourselves: Bobby, Brian, Chris, and Devon.

Connecticut-based Chris Blake did a great presentation on Backward-Chaining the Olympic Lifts. I thoroughly enjoyed all the presentations, but I got alot out of Chris's because I need to progress my knowledge of OL lifts a bit more and his presentation definitely helped. Great job, Chris!

Okay...now on to my rant in regards to what I saw in the audience. There are things that I witness in this field that bother me. I have been in this field for 10+ years and it is the only thing I know. Therefore, I am very passionate and "protective" of my profession because I want to see it represented with respect and dignity--just like law and medicine. Where we ever get to that point? Not anytime soon, but we are making headway. However, there are still some in the field that "just don't get it".

• It bothers me that many young trainers I see look to simply "copy" new exercises; and not fully understand the concepts behind them.
• It bothers me that many of the trainers I see look like they have never stepped foot into a gym.
• It bothers me that many trainers like the "coolness" of being a trainer; but don't look at it as a career--just a pit-stop in life.
• It bothers me that some people still don't know the difference between a concentric and eccentric contraction. I mean, that's biomechaincs 101!
• It bothers me that some trainers attend these workshops and simply absorb the info....they don't process it. (Trust me, there is a difference.)
• It bothers me that at the age of 34, I can out-perform a 24 year old trainer at medicine ball throw-down drills.
• It bothers me that most of these new trainers simply want new ideas to bring back to their clients on Monday, and don't want to simply learn.
• It bothers me that most of these trainers are concerned with just getting their CEUs.
• It bothers me that most trainers don't know the difference between "coaxing their clients" and "coaching their clients".

[Jean-Paul]

Look at it this way, for trainers who have all those qualities you admire, their is very little actual competition out there. There can only be so many world class trainers. It's not like we're surgeons or anything. For that matter, most of them are pretty "by the book" and noncreative as well... Glorified plumbers.

And you also have to consider that some new trainers who don't know the diff between concentric and eccentric are traveling and paying to advance themselves, so maybe there will be hope for them yet.

[Leigh P.]

Originally Posted by John Izzo

T

• It bothers me that many young trainers I see look to simply "copy" new exercises; and not fully understand the concepts behind them.
• It bothers me that many of the trainers I see look like they have never stepped foot into a gym.
• It bothers me that many trainers like the "coolness" of being a trainer; but don't look at it as a career--just a pit-stop in life.
• It bothers me that some people still don't know the difference between a concentric and eccentric contraction. I mean, that's biomechaincs 101!
• It bothers me that some trainers attend these workshops and simply absorb the info....they don't process it. (Trust me, there is a difference.)
• It bothers me that at the age of 34, I can out-perform a 24 year old trainer at medicine ball throw-down drills.
• It bothers me that most of these new trainers simply want new ideas to bring back to their clients on Monday, and don't want to simply learn.
• It bothers me that most of these trainers are concerned with just getting their CEUs.
• It bothers me that most trainers don't know the difference between "coaxing their clients" and "coaching their clients".

While I get where you are coming from with people and their lack of knowledge, you have to remember that everyone starts somewhere. This is not information you gain through osmosis.

I know as a younger athlete I had no idea that what I was doing was wrong. I was taught by an authority figure, a person of assumed higher knowledge, that the information I was receiving was correct. I would then help other teammates and friends in general and share that same information. Until I started educating myself, I thought drop sets were the only way to lift weights. That was how, as a 13 year old player, I was taught to lift weights.

You have to remove yourself from the "all knowing" position and take yourself back to the "learning" position. I am in it right now, aren't you? We never stop learning, there is always a better way. To me it isn't about the knowledge, it is about the NOBILITY. It is about intent. The only time I have a problem is when the intent is bad. When honesty is neglected in the face of advancing for personal gain. Is there something to be said for those who don't try to educate themselves, sure, but not everyone are born skeptics. Some get their certs, go to their seminars, do what it is they think they should be doing, and are never the wiser that a world outside of that, a world of better knowledge exist.

Don't blame the young kids, blame their teachers. Then, instead of raging war, raise the bar and educate. It is all we can do. Instead of writing a message board post ranting and preaching to the choir, instead, send letters to boards and certs about recent studies that go against their doctrine. Provide articles on the new information that is out on training that goes against common taught beliefs. Don't "damn" the man, try to teach them. If that doesn't work, try again. It is all we can do, inspire, teach, lead, and start over again each day. We will fail, we will triumph. We will have small victories and tragic falls. In the end, I know I will be remembered for someone that tried, even if by a few people that post in my tiny section of a message board forum. I tried. With the best knowledge I had at the time.

Awaken the good fight and put to sleep the angry rage.

[RedLefty]

Originally Posted by John Izzo

Okay...now on to my rant in regards to what I saw in the audience. There are things that I witness in this field that bother me. I have been in this field for 10+ years and it is the only thing I know. Therefore, I am very passionate and "protective" of my profession because I want to see it represented with respect and dignity--just like law and medicine. Where we ever get to that point? Not anytime soon, but we are making headway.

The industry will get to that point when becoming a trainer requires several years of intense, specialized, competitive schooling and a six-figure loan.

[John Izzo]

Originally Posted by Leigh P.

While I get where you are coming from with people and their lack of knowledge, you have to remember that everyone starts somewhere. This is not information you gain through osmosis.

I know as a younger athlete I had no idea that what I was doing was wrong. I was taught by an authority figure, a person of assumed higher knowledge, that the information I was receiving was correct. I would then help other teammates and friends in general and share that same information. Until I started educating myself, I thought drop sets were the only way to lift weights. That was how, as a 13 year old player, I was taught to lift weights.

You have to remove yourself from the "all knowing" position and take yourself back to the "learning" position. I am in it right now, aren't you? We never stop learning, there is always a better way. To me it isn't about the knowledge, it is about the NOBILITY. It is about intent. The only time I have a problem is when the intent is bad. When honesty is neglected in the face of advancing for personal gain. Is there something to be said for those who don't try to educate themselves, sure, but not everyone are born skeptics. Some get their certs, go to their seminars, do what it is they think they should be doing, and are never the wiser that a world outside of that, a world of better knowledge exist.

Don't blame the young kids, blame their teachers. Then, instead of raging war, raise the bar and educate. It is all we can do. Instead of writing a message board post ranting and preaching to the choir, instead, send letters to boards and certs about recent studies that go against their doctrine. Provide articles on the new information that is out on training that goes against common taught beliefs. Don't "damn" the man, try to teach them. If that doesn't work, try again. It is all we can do, inspire, teach, lead, and start over again each day. We will fail, we will triumph. We will have small victories and tragic falls. In the end, I know I will be remembered for someone that tried, even if by a few people that post in my tiny section of a message board forum. I tried. With the best knowledge I had at the time.

Awaken the good fight and put to sleep the angry rage.

Leigh,
That was enlightening post. It is not an angry rage, it is the "train wreck" that we have to witness in slow motion everyday in this field that bothers me.

Personal training is a leveled profession--meaning once you are "certified" you are deemed a trainer. There is no schooling, interning, residency, or bar exams to conquer...therefor, it is frustrating when you see "trainers" ---all qualified through means of passing an exam--and they're still having problems distinguishing 'eccentric' from 'concentric'.
I understand we all start from scratch. I have been there beginining in 1997. I have built the last 5 years of my business helping young trainers. My products, books, etc are targeted to young trainers...I have hired countless young trainers and have trained them on professionalism, instruction, and ethics. That should not be questioned--especially through an Internet forum.

But if you really are passionate about this field and what it is that you do, one time or another, like a neighborhood that depreciates because of the next door scum that moves in--it will pull down the entire profession in the eyes of the outside world. That is what I am getting at.

Leigh, Do you think I care what OTHER professionals think? Do you think after 10+ years in the business and 5 as an athlete (high school and collegiate) do you think I care what other professionals think of my rants? You know me better than that kiddo. The concerns and rants are for people like you, JP, and other good trainers...because in the eyes of others "we" get lumped in with those "crappy neighbors" because we all live on the same street. This is not about marketing or making extra dollars, Leigh, it is about upholding integrity in this field so that it can be viewed with respect by others.

I know in the eyes of other fitness professionals the good trainers will prevail and the bad will fall--but it is this turnover that actually hurts the profession. Its not about my peers...its bout polishing this profession so it will sustain in the years to come.

[Leigh P.]

I understand what you are saying about the field, but to me that is a different conversation. What I highlighted about your post was a rant on inexperience in young/new trainers.

It bothers me that many young trainers I see look to simply "copy" new exercises; and not fully understand the concepts behind them.

Again, it is a difference of time. Sometimes it takes a while for stuff like that to click. Even when you read it, study it, and live it, it can still be a tricky subject. This ISN'T a simple subject.

It bothers me that many of the trainers I see look like they have never stepped foot into a gym.

You know that looks are not a telling of knowledge and can be the reverse.

It bothers me that many trainers like the "coolness" of being a trainer; but don't look at it as a career--just a pit-stop in life.

Again, youth. Again, is the intent bad? I am not inclined to think so and I am not someone who is naive.

It bothers me that some people still don't know the difference between a concentric and eccentric contraction. I mean, that's biomechaincs 101!

To you it may be, but hell I think for 3 month straight I confused dorsi and planterflexion in the beginning. Again, is it apathy or lack of understanding entirely.

It bothers me that some trainers attend these workshops and simply absorb the info....they don't process it. (Trust me, there is a difference.)

I agree, but do they get how serious it is? Same can be said for countless of fields that have CE's. Some just run through the motions not understanding, worrying about their kids, their mother in law coming to town, the fact that gas costs just went up. Work isn't an obsession for some people. For some it is just a means of buying pizza for their family on fridays. Again, I look at intent. Is their intent apathy, or is it that a bench press pales in comparison to life's current woes.

It bothers me that at the age of 34, I can out-perform a 24 year old trainer at medicine ball throw-down drills.

That is just training and someone out there that is 41 could say the same about you with a bench press. Performance does not equal knowledge.

It bothers me that most of these new trainers simply want new ideas to bring back to their clients on Monday, and don't want to simply learn.

They are enthused to try new ideas with their clients, they went to the seminar (there are easier ways to get CEU's, you can get them all online if desire), and they train people. Again, not everyone gets it, but this doesn't exactly sound like a tragedy case.

It bothers me that most of these trainers are concerned with just getting their CEUs.

Some don't get any at all.

It bothers me that most trainers don't know the difference between "coaxing their clients" and "coaching their clients".

That is a psychological issue and one of mostly time and doing it over and over again. It is hard when you are working with people. This is not an inanimate object, this is not a tech job. This is a moving breathing human being. Which, yes, all the more reason in my mind to take it seriously but I assure you that most just don't know any better.

I get your frustrations with the industry and marketing as a whole and that we can discuss and there is a LOT I agree with you on. I am not attacking you on that, I am just providing a point of view that is saying "look at the intent" of the situation. I just don't see it in the same light of "apathy." I see more ignorance of understanding, not bad intent. Again, this is why I say, just do the best you can to teach and get out there. Lead and inspire.

[Lost Dog]

While not perfect, most trainers are doing somebody some good. Their very presence is motivating to people.

Other trainers are your competition. Good job being better than them. You should want to be, right? It might be easy to pass some, but some are good. If you pass them, you're doing well.

Most trainers are young and excited to be doing a "glamorous" job. What 24 year old (for instance) is actually getting to help people and get paid for it?

At 24 they are still trying to figure out career vs job. They've had part time jobs and roomies. They're new to being adults and on their own.

I think the fitness industry needs more mentors and positive role models.

As to looking like they workout... It's a sad state, but most trainers are in better shape than the people they are working with. But, the world is fat and most guys and girls (trainer or trainee) don't want muscles. At least not when they start out. They might change later, as muscles accidentally grow OR they get exposed to what they could look like. But, by comparison and on average, trainers are in better shape than the trainee.

Originally Posted by Leigh P.

That is just training and someone out there that is 44...

For the last time, I'm 41, damnit! FORTY-ONE!

[Leigh P.]

changed

[Jennifer M]

I agree with both Leigh and John. Leigh, I agree with you that a trainer's lack of "depth" (for lack of a better word) may be more a function of inexperience than apathy. And John, I agree that there should be different levels of certification.

I came to the field as a second, part-time career in my forties. I wanted to learn more about my habit of exercising/weight-training. So I got my ACE PT certification four years ago. But I always just considered it as an entry-level thing - like a driver's license. I mean, just because you get a license at 16 doesn't make you an expert driver, as clearly evidenced by insurance rates for teenage drivers (!)

I think the problem right now is that there are too many competing certification agencies. I mean, for physicians, there's only one - the AMA, right? For lawyers, it's the Bar in each State. We've got ACSM, NSCA, ISSA, ACE, AFPA, AFTA, NFPT, NASM, and God-knows how many others....

Maybe there should be national standard of some sort. You know, like physicians who specialize and are Board-Certified by their peers (such as "Board-Certified Pediatrician") (By the way, there is currently such a movement in my primary profession, Teaching (see National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: About Us_))

Or, maybe there should be different "areas" of certification. I can tell, for example, that the CSCS certification is geared toward athletic coaches.

Because of my experience with older adults, I have focused my continuing education on "special populations," e.g.: hypertensives, cancer survivors, people with osteopoenia/osteoporosis, post-menopausal women, people with multiple joint issues and/or old injuries, etc.

I feel I am much more knowledgeable in these areas than someone who just passed the ACE Personal Trainer test. But you wouldn't know that by looking at my business card....

- J

[Lost Dog]

You're the best ever

[kuri]

At least those trainers bothered to attend a seminar at all.

During the past two years at my current workplace I've seen dozens and dozens of trainers come and go, and I'd say that a majority of them had seldom, if ever, attended conferences/seminars. The reason alot of these trainers either quit or were fired is because they couldn't keep clients - a result of not knowing how to program and progress people.

Now, I'm apt to go on a rant about how these shitty trainers make us all look bad, but the fact is many gym members can and do recognize the difference - I hear it all the time.

Those trainers that are just starting out that ARE going to seminars at least are willing to learn, and whether or not that's because they want to earn more, well at least they'll be helping someone with that knowledge.

In the meantime I agree with Leigh that helping others out is the way - I've recently started teaching programming/business aspects to small groups and individual trainers and find it fulfilling and a good learning experience.

[ts.vassilev]

Originally Posted by RedLefty

The industry will get to that point when becoming a trainer requires several years of intense, specialized, competitive schooling and a six-figure loan.

That should be a shame. I hope that would happen only in the US

Here's my story - I started lifting weights, and it became not only my job, but my career. I just know it. I feel it. Each day I look back, and I know that today is the day that I am going to be better than yesterday and worse than tomorrow. I have gone from just lifting weights, to teaching people who lift weights, to teaching people who teach lifting weights.

Now here's the question: How do people know how good I am, when they have nothing to campare me to?

If people that have no clue just magically disappear, then I'm left with a couple of problems:
- having too much work that I cannot handle by myself.
- having to compete with you guys.

Sure I think that some would have great benefit if I were the last trainer on earth. And I know that there are people that will actually feel worse with me, than with their previous know-nothing-of-eccentric-contractions guy.


Face it! In every area thre are the guys that are good or get better...and the guys that suck or get worse. Doctors, surgeons, TV-repairmen, construction workers, judges...everywhere!

Just choose your side.

[Jean-Paul]

You hit the nail on the proverbial head there, Tsvetan.

People have to be taught how to appreciate what they have I think. When a client gets asked questions they have never been asked before, and they have a progressive program laid before them and explained to them, it won't take them long to forget the gymrat trainer that had them doing bench presses to negative failure every week.

If they have no frame of reference it's actually even better. They don't need to have trained with that gymrat to recognize that you're talented at what you do. If they come to you and they stay with you and get the results they desired all while being treated with respect and professionalism, then they will appreciate you and never stray.

You can't really advertise that, so the only way to convince your local population is get in front of as many groups as possible and educate your future clients. My lecture series got so many clients for my trainers and boot camps and it didn't really cost a thing other than making the calls to book them.

[WalkingDysfunction]

I hope that the quality of trainers improves in the future because I see a lot of crap going on. Some people argue that the clients just want to get a good sweat and feel ripped regardless if they're destroying their bodies with poor routines. I'm sure the majority of us here argue that you can be effective and safe.

I find it really difficult to work with a client that doesn't believe in the concept of functional strength training. Kind of curious how often do trainers on here encounter that type of client and is it better to not work with them. I guess these types of clients do deserve the crappy trainers, so these trainers do serve a purpose.

[PowerManDL]

Define "functional strength training". Functional for what?

I'm of the mindset that anyone's goals can be parsed into an effective routine. It's up to the trainer/coach to have that awareness.

Part of that is being able to read between the lines, not get so engrossed in any particular dogma (be it for or against any given position) that you can't see the forest for the trees.

[WalkingDysfunction]

I meant functional strength training in regards to getting results (usually aesthetic) while teaching a movement that is useful for everyday life (squatting to pick up a child or heavy box). You can get aesthetic results throwing them on a leg press, leg extension and leg curl machine, but who needs a trainer for that?

I had a training session with someone that wanted "sports specific" training for competitive volleyball and tennis, but didn't want to do any of the functional things that are sports specific. The person wanted to do a lot of useless busy work to get tired and feel like she's training for her sport....I can't accept that client.

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by WalkingDysfunction

I meant functional strength training in regards to getting results (usually aesthetic) while teaching a movement that is useful for everyday life (squatting to pick up a child or heavy box). You can get aesthetic results throwing them on a leg press, leg extension and leg curl machine, but who needs a trainer for that?

So strength in those muscle groups isn't functional? It doesn't have any translation to "everyday life" movements?

I had a training session with someone that wanted "sports specific" training for competitive volleyball and tennis, but didn't want to do any of the functional things that are sports specific. The person wanted to do a lot of useless busy work to get tired and feel like she's training for her sport....I can't accept that client.

What's functional and sport-specific for volleyball and tennis?

What did she want to do in lieu of that?

[WalkingDysfunction]

no....they really don't. The movement patterns for machine exercises and a freeweight squat are different....add in the fact that you never get full hip extension and stabilization demand in a leg press, machine exercises are useless for a functional squat.

Volleyball and tennis are power exercises.....squats, DL's, hang cleans, push press, rotational medicine ball throws, etc. are good exercises for these sports. Russian twists with a medicine ball, moutain climbers, light weight training and crunches on a stability ball while neglecting all lower extremity lifts are not sport specific.

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by WalkingDysfunction

no....they really don't. The movement patterns for machine exercises and a freeweight squat are different....add in the fact that you never get full hip extension and stabilization demand in a leg press, machine exercises are useless for a functional squat.

Just so we're clear here...you're telling me that increased force-producing potential, increased strength-endurance, and overall increased cross-sectional area of a contributing muscle/muscle group won't contribute at all to a compound exercise?

Think before you answer.

Volleyball and tennis are power exercises.....squats, DL's, hang cleans, push press, rotational medicine ball throws, etc. are good exercises for these sports. Russian twists with a medicine ball, moutain climbers, light weight training and crunches on a stability ball while neglecting all lower extremity lifts are not sport specific.

Do you understand the difference between general development and specific development?

PS - just to clarify, I'm not busting your balls here. I'm trying to clarify and expand on the discussion.

[WalkingDysfunction]

While you do get the phsyiological benefits of just exercising on a machine....you're forgetting the neuromuscular aspect of it. If you don't know how to squat.....you should practice squatting. You've even stated before that the reason why people suck at squats because they rely on smith machines, leg presses, etc.

Not quite sure what you exactly mean in regards to general vs. specific development, but the person was very deconditioned and had no foundation in strength, endurance and core stabilization. This overweight "athlete" should've at least been able to perform a proper squat, lunge or bent knee push up.....especially if she's been working with an "athlete" trainer for 4 years.

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by WalkingDysfunction

While you do get the phsyiological benefits of just exercising on a machine....you're forgetting the neuromuscular aspect of it. If you don't know how to squat.....you should practice squatting. You've even stated before that the reason why people suck at squats because they rely on smith machines, leg presses, etc.

Indeed I have. The neuromuscular element, technique, skill-specificity, whatever you want to call it, is very important. What I'm getting at here is that people all across the board are too quick to pigeonhole and get stuck thinking I'm Right without any consideration for other viewpoints.

I'm not suggesting any kind of ridiculous golden mean where all POVs are equal, but what I am saying is that you can find gems of wisdom even in the biggest pile of shit.

With that in mind, there's certainly something to be said for the role of training "muscles" as opposed to training "movements". The whens and hows are details that transcend this particular conversation - but the original point was not to necessarily discount an idea simply because it doesn't jive with a pet belief.

99% of the things you hear will be bullshit built on deeper layers of bullshit. But sometimes a bad cause doesn't remove a real effect, and explaining the BS or framing it in more sensible terms can be of use.

Not quite sure what you exactly mean in regards to general vs. specific development, but the person was very deconditioned and had no foundation in strength, endurance and core stabilization. This overweight "athlete" should've at least been able to perform a proper squat, lunge or bent knee push up.....especially if she's been working with an "athlete" trainer for 4 years.

General training is anything that contributes to the athlete's functional ability. Full stop. Distance runs, sprints, medball throws, strongman exercises, bodybuilding, martial arts, jumps, kettlebells, PNF, powerlifting....you name it. If it doesn't directly deal with the technical-skill elements or the specific conditioning elements of the sport, it's general work.

Specific training is, well, specific training. It's the technical-tactical and metabolic qualities that are directly applicable to the sport, and usually (but not always) under the conditions of the sport.

It seems that a lot of folks get hung up on the latter as being more important than the former. And don't get me wrong, specific training is very important. A runner needs to run, a martial artist needs to spar, etc etc.

But at the same time, if you want said athlete to perform to his/her best, it'd be very smart not to discount general preparation.

Most of all, I'm not willing to pigeonhole things as an either/or proposition. You can and probably should involve both outlooks - which is why I won't ever rule out machines, or anything else, as being useless simply on the grounds of not being "functional" or sport-specific.

Functional training is not a routine you do or some fad "style" of training. It's a goal-oriented process, and it's entirely determined by context.

In your particular case-study, you're in the right without a doubt. Someone that's completely lacking a foundation of training really has no business dicking around with anything but the basics. My comments here are directed in a more general sense - as in, doing leg pressing exercises and even the hated leg extension can assist in developing strength in their own way.

Adding cross-sectional area to muscles, increasing their force output and fatigue resistance is *never* going to be harmful to an exercise. Will they make you good at the exercise alone? No, but no one is making it an either/or proposition. Nothing says you can't do both.

[Allerious]

Originally Posted by WalkingDysfunction

I find it really difficult to work with a client that doesn't believe in the concept of functional strength training.

lol, I find it impossible to work with anyone who espouses that concept.

Originally Posted by WalkingDysfunction

You can get aesthetic results throwing them on a leg press, leg extension and leg curl machine, but who needs a trainer for that?

Who needs a trainer for the machines? Try 95% of the people at the gym. If a bodyweight squat is a "foreign" exercise to people, then how do you think those people see a machine? They can't make head or tail of it. They have no idea how to adjust it properly, how to get set up properly, and what the movement should look like - despite the fact that the diagram is sitting right in front of them.

As a trainer, my entire function is giving people machine based routines for aesthetics. I think it's a terrible shame that someone would say "who needs a trainer for the machines". The vast majority of people who train on machines do not use them properly. They don't set the machine properly, they don't push themselves hard enough, they simply sit down and rep away while spacing out. I train people to work on machines with the intensity of pro bodybuilders.

Average people also don't know how to tell a good machine from a poor one. Three chest press machines are not always going to be created equal. Additionally, machine exercises can be modified in numerous ways that an average person would never think of. For instance, using an underhand grip on the lever pec fly is the single most effective exercise for pec development because it eliminates the involvement of the ant. deltoid. I never saw a single person do that in 5 years at a commercial gym until I showed them.

People, left on their own, will do the same exercise the exact same way each time they do it. They won't vary their grip or anything. Each machine offers so many settings to play around with it and they will just sit down and ignore 90% of them. They NEED a trainer there to tell them to do that stuff. And to explain why it's beneficial, and to get their heads in the game. Clients are encouraged to start experimenting on their own to find out what works and what doesn't. This is what separates an athlete from a baby - the athlete takes self-responsibility. He knows the purpose of his training and he is intellectually and emotionally involved in his own training program. He is not a zombie going through the motions prescribed to him by his trainer. This "zombie" state is the defining characteristic of the beginner trainee. I would go so far as to say that a trainer's entire worth can be measured by how long it takes for him to progress a client beyond the zombie state and turn that person into an informed, thinking individual. That's my number one imperative and golden rule for newbs is to get them OUT of the newb stage as fast as humanly possible. Because let's face it: Training newb clients is fundamentally no different than changing retarded people's diapers. Anyone who values the academic side of training theory must despise this aspect of the business.

To that end, I invest a huge amount of my time in building a system for educating my clients - "bringing them up to snuff". Handpoints, web links, charts, diagrams, explanations, videos, I use every tool I can get my hands on. They get a blitzkreig of information in the beginning, which is good because it at least wakes them up, even though they'll only retain 1/4-1/3 of it.

The problem with classifying free weights as "functional" exercises and machines as "non-functional" is that it's inherently false and dishonest, due to the simple fact that people, in real life, may mimic movement patterns found in free weight exercises, but hardly EVER using the same loads.

If one was to be honest and technically accurate with his endorsement of "functional training", then external resistance would be out of the picture altogether for the majority of the training population. It would be bodyweight exercises all day - martial arts style. On a "pure" functional routine like that, you would have a much harder time claiming aesthetic improvements as a side effect of your training. Very few people are capable of changing their appearance with exercises like BW squats and pushups. You're effectively cheating by adding weight to these exercises, which reduces their functional carryover, but increases their potential for physique change.

Training to be able to squat 100 lbs is worlds apart from training for a 500 lb. squat. Once a certain threshhold in poundage is crossed, the individual can no longer be considered to training for "function". Instead, he has crossed over into the realm of highly specialized, sports-specific training.

Progressive increases in strength do NOT translate into concomitant increases in "functional capacity". If that were the case, then superheavyweight powerlifters would be the most limber guys around. They aren't. They can hardly walk. Which perfectly illustrates the point.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Allerious

lol, I find it impossible to work with anyone who espouses that concept.

I find it unbelievable you continue to log in here to get hit over the head.

The problem with classifying free weights as "functional" exercises and machines as "non-functional" is that it's inherently false and dishonest, due to the simple fact that people, in real life, may mimic movement patterns found in free weight exercises, but hardly EVER using the same loads.

That hardly validates the value of machines. Grocery bags are not set in a linear rail system so that the move is stricly up or down.

If one was to be honest and technically accurate with his endorsement of "functional training", then external resistance would be out of the picture altogether for the majority of the training population. It would be bodyweight exercises all day - martial arts style.

Not where I live come winter. This past winter, I did a lot of shoveling and pushed a lot of cars out of the snow. And when I moved out of my apartment and into my house, I moved most of my own stuff a car load at a time. I moved most of my gym, I helped with my TV (32" Sony Vega, monster TV and pretty much obsolete), etc. Up and down stairs for hours at a time, days on end.

On a "pure" functional routine like that, you would have a much harder time claiming aesthetic improvements as a side effect of your training. Very few people are capable of changing their appearance with exercises like BW squats and pushups.

Yes they can, if they understand the relationship of diet and exercise to body recomposition. You keep espousing bodybuilding, not everyone wants to look like Cutler. In fact, most don't.

You're effectively cheating by adding weight to these exercises, which reduces their functional carryover, but increases their potential for physique change.

Huh? The law of diminishing return doesn't really apply. Yes, you're going beyond what is needed, 90% of the time, but often times, injuries occur because muscles didn't fire properly, such as when the body tries to correct itself after slipping on ice, or from impulse loading beyond what a body was trained to withstand.

Progressive increases in strength do NOT translate into concomitant increases in "functional capacity". If that were the case, then superheavyweight powerlifters would be the most limber guys around. They aren't. They can hardly walk. Which perfectly illustrates the point.

There's a world of difference between mobility and strength and you're exaggerating, again, which is your failing, always. Bodybuilders suffer more detriment to their mobility from mass size than powerlifters.

[ts.vassilev]

T-Nation.com | Five Myths About Training Athletes

A while ago I claimed that I could see everyone's point of view, and find SOME truth about it.
Then I met a guy that also claimed that he would accept any view as long as there's some backup and/or explanation to it.

You know what? We were both wrong. You are only going to accept what's right for you in your world. If it intersects with someone's opinion - then it's true for you both, if not - then someone's wrong.

The bottom line is - no matter how hard you claim to be open, you still remain closed to the things you dislike. Walking doesn't like leg presses and swiss-ball squats, Powerman doesn't think that Walking has thought it over, Cynic just doesn't like machines but loves powerlifting and Allerious...well I didn't even read her post but I don't feel bad about it.

And you know what? I don't think that progressing someone from rowing in a fixed line with an underhand grip to rowing on the same machine with an overhand grip is progress. Going from machine rows to bench supported rows to BB rows or inverted pullups would qualify as progress. But you know what? That's only in my world. In someone else's head - if you put your hands wider while deadlifting on the smith machine, that would be a whole other exercise!

Have you ever thought how shortsighted people see the world? Or colour blind people? Or crazy people? I have. And I am pretty sure that the same differences apply to every aspect of the universe, including strengthening the quads on the leg press.

Walking(can I use your name by the way?), seriously? A volleyball "player" that is overweight? Just bitch-slap her in the face and get her in shape. If she doesn't want to work with you your way, then either change your ways or send her to the "crappy" trainers where she belongs.

[WalkingDysfunction]

You can call me Rich. Geez....I guess this topic totally went a different direction. The girl is off to some "crappy" trainer in a different gym I assume. I've been told that I should've just blasted her with exercises and then try to convince her later on about addressing her glaring issues....I guess I was being a "bad salesman". She really seemed rigid in her stance on training, so it wouldn't have worked out. I assume that she really pictured herself as a "competitive athlete" and couldn't accept my evaluation and recommendations.

It really seems like some people want to be patronized into thinking they're fit. I saw a trainer with her client doing walking lunges, which is perfectly fine. The only problem was that the client had a really weak core and couldn't keep an upright torso, but the trainer was just walking next to her and speaking away about her day. I'm thinking to myself "cue her to engage her core!!!"...geez.

[ts.vassilev]

I know you're Rich, just didn't know if you wanted the world to know.

Now...if you have 5 clients, and the crappy trainer has 15, in the eyes of your manager - you are crappy.
Here's a quick tip - give the customers what they want. THEN(only after that) do what they should be doing. There was a really nice formula we put together with a friend of mine. I'll see if I can find the exact phrasing.

Haven't you read all those Eric Cressey articles, where he says that you shouldn't tell people how bad they are doing. You shouldn't tell them waht to do either. Tell them how to do the things they are doing better. Only modify the trianing plan on a small scale.

What you should have done with that volleyball player:
- start giving her what she wants, being reasonable with it. she wants the burn? give her the burn.
- try getting her into some shape. diet,training,whatever. that would develop trust.
- try slowly talking her into some of the things you think.
- get her into more shape -> more trust -> more emotional/trust capital.
- do more of what you want making sure she wants it at that point too.


Rich, answer me this: can you afford losing a client? Even at the middle of the coaching pyramid, you seldom get to choose who you can turn down. And we my friend - you and I - are somewhere near the bottom


Here's another concept for you: trust capital.

What is it?
It is the amout of "I bealieve" towards an entity. Be it trainer, shoes, knives, kitchenware, pills. I believe Asics because I have always felt great in their shoes, and if they say that they've got a brand new nice shoe - than it's nice!

How do I get it?
You either build your own or borrow from someone. My friend says that her trainer is cool. I trust him in the amount I trust my friend.

I could expand on the topic, but I am pretty sure that it has been discussed somewhere here.

[WalkingDysfunction]

I understand what you're saying and will keep those things in mind for the future....thanks! I guess this is a lesson to learn from towards being a more marketable trainer.

[PowerManDL]

Tsvetan pretty much summed up what I was trying to get at in my long-winded roundabout way.

To make it more concise: perception is reality

It's your job to pander to the perceptions of your client (no matter how much it sucks, and when you've got An Idea of how things are "supposed" to be done, it's going to suck) while bridging the gap to what actually needs to get done.

If your volleyball girl comes in out of shape and weak, and she thinks she knows better than you, you've got two options:

1) Argue with her over it, and if she's just that stubborn, she's not going to listen to you anyway

2) Just say "OK", throw her a few bones so that the know-it-all thinks she's getting her way, and when she's not looking, slip in the real training.

I've been just as guilty of #1 as anybody. But #2 is the more productive route, IMO. You've got your way of doing things, I've got mine, etc, but it all boils down to the same concepts and general guidelines of physiology.

Which is really what I meant about not ignoring any particular avenues - if somebody comes in wanting to shape up and tone up, hell you can do that while operating under a productive workout. Just remember that perception is more important than reality.

Sometimes the terminology will make you cringe, but you can determine a realistic goal from even the thickest of bro-speak.

[ts.vassilev]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

To make it more concise: perception is reality

Just remember that perception is more important than reality.

Superb!

[stroutman81]

Great post Matt.