There is discussion going on in Sacramento right now regarding proposals regarding creating some sort of body to regulate and license personal trainers.
The Senate also was divided on a measure to protect people who hire personal trainers.
"I was amazed that virtually anyone can call themselves a personal trainer, regardless of their education or lack thereof," said Sen. Ron Calderon (D-Montebello), author of SB 374. "People who train improperly can be injured for life."
The measure would prohibit people from representing themselves as personal trainers without certification from a recognized national group or a bachelor's degree in exercise science, kinesiology, fitness science or a closely related field.
Hollingsworth said the proposal would merely create red tape that could make it hard for people to find personal trainers in the future.
"This type of thing creates a scarcity," Hollingsworth said. "There's little evidence that we need this bill."
Any opinions on if this should be done?
Who should have a seat at the table?
What should constitute someone as being qualified to be licensed?
__________________
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've read about this also, and I'm torn on the subject. Obviously it MAY help weed out the shit in the industry, but it wouldn't create "scarcity" as stated. There are a lot of great trainers out there.
On the flip-side, would this mean that because they'd be licensed that somehow insurance companies would or could pay for personal training?? would it encroach on the strength and conditioning realm, or physical therapy for that matter?
I am all for it. I think we need to weed out the crappy trainers. Just as homes become dilapidated in a neighborhood, they depreciate the value of the surrounding homes. Personal trainers need a level playing field so that we can filter out the less than stellar trainers from robbing client's of their money.
# of trainers in California X licensing fees = mucho dinero for a cash starved state.
That said I agree with John that there should be some requirement for licensing trainers. The things I have seen some "trainers" do with clients in the gym you just knew it was an accident waiting to happen.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
Some guys at my gym were freaking out when the licensing matter was brought up, and for good reason - they'll probably be out of a job. I smile at the thought.
It could be a very good thing, but doubt if it would change the quality of training very much. It looks as though anyone with a cert from a nationally recognized organization would qualify, and we all know how many NASM/ACE/NSCA jackasses there are out there.
However, it would weed out some, and perhaps bring a modicum of respect to the field.
__________________
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
Its funny when I talk to the trainers that "don't want the government meddling in fitness..", its really a plea to not be exposed as a crappy trainer. My opinion is bring it...build this house with a cement foundation, not mud.
Its funny when I talk to the trainers that "don't want the government meddling in fitness..", its really a plea to not be exposed as a crappy trainer. My opinion is bring it...build this house with a cement foundation, not mud.
I agree, but I don't see this as being a move that would make much difference. Everyone that is a certified trainer now would probably be a certified trainer under new licensing rules. They'd just have to pay the state an extra fee for their license. Every cert, seminar, ceu's, etc wants to take a chunk out of our wallet. Why not let the state get in line, too?
Let me start by saying this is a good thing in my opinion and these are steps in the right direction. However, this proposed legislation has nothing to do with the licensure of personal trainers. If you read the bill, there is no mention (directly or indirectly) of the licensing of personal trainers:
There are three major types of occupational regulation: licensure, registration, and certification. There are big differences between the three. The New York State Department of Labor website has a nice explanation of the differences between the various forms of regulation:
Again, I think this is a good move and I hope it gains momentum nationally, but it is not licensure. That may, in fact, happen down the road but we are nowhere near that point at the present time.
Massachusetts appears to be doing something very similar right now with the regulation of personal trainers but that bill specifically uses the term licensure:
Based on the wording of the bill, it seems that the requirements to be a personal trainer in Massachusetts will be more stringent:
1) graduate from an accredited program (with a related degree); AND
2) be certificated through an NCCA accredited organization; AND
3) pass a board certification exam regulated by the state (i.e. licensure exam).
California does not mention the third requirement (certification by the state licensing board) and only indicates that item 1 OR item 2 must be done (both are not necessary) to satisfy the requirements - the Massachusetts bill requires ALL 3 requirements be met. This makes sense as licensure is the most restrictive method of regulation.
So, if I read the Mass. rules correctly, someone like Mark Rippetoe who has been a strength coach and trainer for 30 years could not get licensed in Mass. because his undergraduate degree from 30 years ago is in engineering (I think) rather than a related degree?
It would appear from the wording that you could complete a short term (like 4-6 month) "approved certificate program" (sure to start cropping up all over the place) and qualify but a four-year degree in a non-related field with decades of experience would not qualify you.
Continuing with the hypothetical, does the Mass. legislation prohibit someone from training without a license? Or could you train but not have the distinction of being a licensed Personal Trainer? I can't tell from the link provided.
So, if I read the Mass. rules correctly, someone like Mark Rippetoe who has been a strength coach and trainer for 30 years could not get licensed in Mass. because his undergraduate degree from 30 years ago is in engineering (I think) rather than a related degree?
It would appear from the wording that you could complete a short term (like 4-6 month) "approved certificate program" (sure to start cropping up all over the place) and qualify but a four-year degree in a non-related field with decades of experience would not qualify you.
Continuing with the hypothetical, does the Mass. legislation prohibit someone from training without a license? Or could you train but not have the distinction of being a licensed Personal Trainer? I can't tell from the link provided.
Good questions. Based on the wording, it seems as if someone like Rippetoe (his undergraduate degree is in geology) would not qualify. However, my guess is that people like him would be grandfathered in because: 1) he is clearly qualified and 2) the rules can not be drastically changed all of a sudden without giving some latitude to those who have been working in the field and playing by the rules as they have been laid out for years. Similar things have occurred in other evolving professions. For example, in a few years, there will only be Doctorate of Physical Therapy (DPT) programs and the only way to become a licensed physical therapist will be to go through a DPT program. However, the large number of physical therapists who previously obtained bachelors or masters degrees in physical therapy will still be allowed to practice. As I am not a physical therapist, I do not know if they will eventually have to go through a transitional DPT program or if they will be grandfathered in to the new system.
Regarding your other question, if the licensing of personal trainers gets passed in a state like Massachusetts, it would mean that a person legally could neither call himself or herself a personal trainer nor could he or she perform anything that would be considered to be personal training (according to a yet-to-be-defined scope of practice). At least this is how it works in all of the licensed allied health care professions and every other licensed profession (as far as I know). This accomplishes two goals: 1) protect the public from harm and 2) limit the practice of [whatever] to those who have been licensed to do so by the state.
Brings up interesting questions for internet clients since it is state by state licensure requirement or not - I wonder if there are commerce clause implications as well. As in, can I do internet training for clients in Mass if I am in Texas (hypothetical no license required)? If I am licensed in California can I do internet training for clients in Mass (though not licensed in Mass)? That sort of thing. Or is internet or online training of clients going to be outside the scope of practice for PersTrain? Interesting questions.
Lots going on regarding certification and licensing! Let's hope that it is implemented properly so that it raises the bar for personal trainers and doesn't just become a cahs grab for the states!
California Legislation to License Trainers
Linear Mode
