I came across this interesting article 10 Things Your Personal Trainer Won't Tell You.
Most of the points talks about the business side and interpersonal relationship of the personal training business. Some of these are indeed true of not-so-ethical trainers.
However, what caught my interest the most was this:
Overall i find this article is missing the point of the real nature of exercise instruction. A gross misunderstanding on the nature of motor learning.
The article seems to suggest that:
1) You can do machines or functional movements in exclusion of the other.
I won't go through all that debate of machines vs free weights.
The article seems to suggest that functional training is not needed. Of course the use of the specific functional training equipment is not needed. I mean before people invented these equipment, people are already functional. But the idea of functional training needs to be there. Do you mean you don't train to improve your functions? What are you training for then?
The article compares the benefits of functional training against the benefits of machine training as strength-building and weight loss. Well, this is comparing apples to oranges.
Does that mean that functional training cannot give you strength and weight loss? The functional training exercises cited by the article, namely coordination exercises (only), without a strength and/or conditioning component of course can't give you strength and weight loss. You get what you train for.
I believe the author is not informed of CST's concept of motor sophistication, whereby you can and do strength & conditioning with complex movement. If you are the author of the article, i urge you to check out CST.
I won't go further into what sophistication is as i have mentioned it many times.
2) And that a personal trainer is not needed to give instructions on any of their use and assumes that the client CAN and KNOWS what to do if he be "let" to use them on his own.
Whether the equipment in question is machines or functional training equipment is not the point. The point is clients need to be taught the proper way to exercise. Exercising, or general human movement in the larger context, is not something that anybody can do properly, due to the largely sedentary nature of modern urban life. People have just forgotten how to move properly. This is evidenced by the sheer number of sedentary related conditions and injuries.
Every activity is an integration of breathing, structure and movement. Within each, there are more points to cover than what the average personal trainer care to know. Most of these are not even taught in the typical personal trainer school.
Do you really think clients know what to do? I doubt so.
Note that we are not trying to make things seem more complicated that what things already are. But there are really deeper levels to what the average personal trainer education teaches. And these are important for real lasting fitness, health and performance.
Conclusion
A personal trainer is there to guide clients on exercises (and more). He is not a dispensable person. Just like there are professionals in all other disciplines, we are professionals when it comes to exercise and fitness.
Can you repair your own car without a mechanic or engineer, with proper training, tools and experience? Even if you can, can you do a better job than a professional?
Most of the points talks about the business side and interpersonal relationship of the personal training business. Some of these are indeed true of not-so-ethical trainers.
However, what caught my interest the most was this:
5. "If I let you use the equipment, you'll realize you don't need me."
Does your trainer steer you away from the abs machine, making you do crunches with a medicine ball instead? Trainers are sometimes told not to spend too much time teaching clients how to use the big equipment for fear that once they get comfortable, they'll want to go it alone. That's why trainers might emphasize coordination exercises and rely on smaller props like stability balls, resistance tubing or bands, and balance tools, the three types of gear most frequently used by trainers. This type of "functional training" helps prep clients for popular recreational activities like tennis and skiing, as well as basic movements like bending down during household chores. But larger equipment also has its benefits; it can bring speedy results in strength-building and help keep weight off.
"The best trainers serve clients by helping them become independent exercisers," Cotton says. He suggests asking prospective trainers how they'll help you get there. A spokesperson for the National Exercise Trainers Association says it encourages trainers to prove to clients there's more to working out than using big machines, in part because of the benefits of functional training.Though i agree with the conclusion to help people "become independent exercisers", but the heading and reasoning given in para 1 is really disturbing.
Overall i find this article is missing the point of the real nature of exercise instruction. A gross misunderstanding on the nature of motor learning.
The article seems to suggest that:
1) You can do machines or functional movements in exclusion of the other.
I won't go through all that debate of machines vs free weights.
The article seems to suggest that functional training is not needed. Of course the use of the specific functional training equipment is not needed. I mean before people invented these equipment, people are already functional. But the idea of functional training needs to be there. Do you mean you don't train to improve your functions? What are you training for then?
The article compares the benefits of functional training against the benefits of machine training as strength-building and weight loss. Well, this is comparing apples to oranges.
Does that mean that functional training cannot give you strength and weight loss? The functional training exercises cited by the article, namely coordination exercises (only), without a strength and/or conditioning component of course can't give you strength and weight loss. You get what you train for.
I believe the author is not informed of CST's concept of motor sophistication, whereby you can and do strength & conditioning with complex movement. If you are the author of the article, i urge you to check out CST.
I won't go further into what sophistication is as i have mentioned it many times.
2) And that a personal trainer is not needed to give instructions on any of their use and assumes that the client CAN and KNOWS what to do if he be "let" to use them on his own.
Whether the equipment in question is machines or functional training equipment is not the point. The point is clients need to be taught the proper way to exercise. Exercising, or general human movement in the larger context, is not something that anybody can do properly, due to the largely sedentary nature of modern urban life. People have just forgotten how to move properly. This is evidenced by the sheer number of sedentary related conditions and injuries.
Every activity is an integration of breathing, structure and movement. Within each, there are more points to cover than what the average personal trainer care to know. Most of these are not even taught in the typical personal trainer school.
Do you really think clients know what to do? I doubt so.
Note that we are not trying to make things seem more complicated that what things already are. But there are really deeper levels to what the average personal trainer education teaches. And these are important for real lasting fitness, health and performance.
Conclusion
A personal trainer is there to guide clients on exercises (and more). He is not a dispensable person. Just like there are professionals in all other disciplines, we are professionals when it comes to exercise and fitness.
Can you repair your own car without a mechanic or engineer, with proper training, tools and experience? Even if you can, can you do a better job than a professional?
No comments:
Post a Comment