all posts post new thread

Old Forum Contention - Abolish "Exercise Science" Degree

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

dmaxashman

Level 5 Valued Member
I contend that strength and conditioning coaches and physical therapists would be better professionals if none of them majored in Exercise Science, or a related degree.  I think they would be better majoring in physics or math (or anatomy and physiology if that were possible).

I think this is true because most mainstream strength knowledge is wrong and so stuff taught in college is either a waste of time or counterproductive.  A person can best learn about this stuff either through being an athlete, working with a strength coach, working with other strong people, or taking seminars like strong first seminars.  I also think that the fitness industry is not really a science but more of an embarrassment with laughable logic skills.  Most people are too insecure to have a debate on training issues and have an inability to present reasons why a training method is good or bad or optimal or dangerous (I think this is true even for many of the better trainers).  That is why I think majoring in math or physics would be best as it would teach the importance of truth, reasoning, and finding the right ways instead of becoming entrenched in bad traditions.

Disclaimer.  I did not study fitness in college.  I hope people don't take this as an insult if they did study in this field in college... I just want to throw it out there and see what people think.

 
 
I'm going to guess you studied physics and/or math?  I'm going to disagree.  Unless you get to a really high level its mostly just more dogmatism as far as I understand the fields.  How about epistemology - the art of calling people on their bullshit?
 
In all honesty I can understand where you are coming from. I myself am in my last semester of college and as much as I would have LOVED to have a cool major like exercise science or another subject that is in line with my passions the fact is this I have been majoring in accounting because of this fact. It is one of the few degrees left today that are useful and that you can get a job with. I honestly don't like it very much and would love to have done exercise science but what are you going to do with it? The way I look at it is that its a physical education degree with the education aspect to it and even then there aren't any jobs for gym teachers left anymore or coming around anytime soon.

Now with all this being said doesn't Pavel himself have his degree in something like Exercise Science? Also what about Dr. Stuart McGill? I mean not for nothing but he is one of the few legit people who have had proven scientific research done on the back and in the area of spinal flexion.

 

So I'm just saying.............
 
"I think this is true because most mainstream strength knowledge is wrong and so stuff taught in college is either a waste of time or counterproductive. "
Click to expand...
So when a course teaches the wrong thing, in your hypothetical solution to this problem you go with "abolish the course" rather than "teach what is correct"? That seems odd.
"A person can best learn about this stuff either through being an athlete, working with a strength coach, working with other strong people, or taking seminars like strong first seminars."
Click to expand...
Most athletes don't have a clue, actually. And if they did, it would make strength coaches redundant since they already 'know best' somehow from being an athlete (though how you propose that would work is beyond me). For someone who is bragging about their logic skills, surely you must recognise how irrational is the idea that to learn how to best help athletes improve performance, you should be an athlete so you can learn how to improve performance.
Your other options are decent, but incomplete. They only work really well as complements to having a grounding in the basics first. I've seen plenty of RKCs (and presumably by extension it will be the same with SFGs) who have a piss-poor understanding of anatomy, physiology and even programming. Sure, they have and can teach good technique, but that's about it. Working with a strength coach is what a lot of grads will probably do (if not have already done as part of their course), as I don't think most people will end up working entirely on their own afterwards. But who wants to be dealing with someone completely ignorant? As a strength coach if you've got an intern, you don't want to have to be explaining basics of anatomy, etc. And how is working with other general strong people going to help me learn to work with a different variety of athletes? Can a powerlifter teach me how to improve the performance of a cyclist? Can a strongman teach me how to improve vertical jump in a basketballer? Can an Olympic lifter teach me about shoulder rehab for a swimmer? Not likely.
"Most people are too insecure to have a debate on training issues and have an inability to present reasons why a training method is good or bad or optimal or dangerous"
Click to expand...
This is true of almost everyone I have met everywhere in almost every field. If we replace "a training method" with "anything".
"That is why I think majoring in math or physics would be best as it would teach the importance of truth, reasoning, and finding the right ways instead of becoming entrenched in bad traditions."
Click to expand...
There are so many problems here, I have to list them numerically.
1. So you propose that people go to college, spend thousands of dollars majoring in maths, so that afterwards they can then start fresh and learn all the knowledge and skills for a completely different field that requires absolutely no maths at all? Purely because it will "teach the importance of truth, reasoning"? Really?
2. Wouldn't majoring in philosophy also teach the importance of truth and reasoning, and in fact to a higher degree? Maths and physics don't really teach you critical thinking skill; they teach you to follow set formulae for the most part. Philosophy (possibly including the actual study of formal logic) specifically challenges you to think critically, construct arguments, rationally justify statements, etc. If you are concerned with the inability of people to logically debate issues, philosophy seems like it would be more suitable.
3. I suck at maths and physics. I really like the idea of them and wish I was better, but I just suck terribly. I would fail trying to major in them. I wouldn't get through the course. Does that mean I shouldn't be a strength coach? Because, I gotta say, I don't work in the field yet but I think I'd be pretty damn good at it.
4. I have friends who *have* done things like maths and physics, but are distinctly inferior to me when it comes to both logic/reasoning/argument and an understanding of exercise topics. Although they do actually have an interest in truth and reasoning, their degree clearly hasn't prepared them that well for anything other than what they actually studied.
5. I'm not even convinced that majoring in maths or physics really would "teach the importance of truth, reasoning, and finding the right ways" in the first place. Is there any real reason to suspect that it should?
 
Your main points are well taken. Can't be any doubt that, for example, trainers are better off solidly knowing anatomy and muscle physiology than otherwise. But some of your comments must be contested.

"Maths and physics don’t really teach you critical thinking skill; they teach you to follow set formulae for the most part."

Please! One might as well say that philosophy drills students in the dogmatic opinions (uninformed by science) of (usually dead) philosophers.

"Philosophy (possibly including the actual study of formal logic) specifically challenges you to think critically, construct arguments, rationally justify statements, etc. ...  I have friends who *have* done things like maths and physics, but are distinctly inferior to me when it comes to both logic/reasoning/argument and an understanding of exercise topics. Although they do actually have an interest in truth and reasoning, their degree clearly hasn’t prepared them that well for anything other than what they actually studied."

I'm sure the great successes of philosophy in solving problems both practical and theoretical are celebrated (among philosophers if among no one else)! Perhaps you are unaware of how much modern philosophy owes to the ruthless clarity brought to intellectual discourse by the mathematicians, mathematical logicians and physicists.

Btw, regarding the comment about the "inferiority" of your friends in matters of applied logic, it's difficult to address without knowing your friends but one questions your implied generalisations. Please be informed that on the one hand, professional mathematicians are usually trained in a fairly extreme form of logic which can be difficult to apply in undiluted form to most practical situations. They often tend to shy away from the highly verbal, wiggle-room-allowing, street-smart thinking which often passes for "logic". On the other hand, non-mathematicians doing maths courses are far better off having their thinking rattled by the mathematicians' acute awareness of underlying assumptions, the need for rigorous proof, of examples-counterexamples, the failure of intuition in subtle ways etc. Going by your self-gratulatory comments, philosophy students should excel all others in, say, computer programming in which a certain form of exact logic is a must. But that's not true, is it?
 
"One might as well say that philosophy drills students in the dogmatic opinions (uninformed by science) of (usually dead) philosophers."
Have you ever taken a philosophy course? If you did, and this was your experience, then you were unlucky. Drilling dogmatic opinions is contrary to the very nature of philosophy however, and can't possibly be an accurate description of it.\

"I’m sure the great successes of philosophy in solving problems both practical and theoretical are celebrated (among philosophers if among no one else)! "
I'm sure your sarcasm is meant to make some relevant point... care to elaborate on what that might be?

"Perhaps you are unaware of how much modern philosophy owes to the ruthless clarity brought to intellectual discourse by the mathematicians, mathematical logicians and physicists."
I am indeed unaware. Care to expand?

"Btw, regarding the comment about the “inferiority” of your friends in matters of applied logic, it’s difficult to address without knowing your friends but one questions your implied generalisations."
There was no implied generalisation. It was intended as a counter-example to the OPs generalisation that studying maths and/or physics automatically equals superior thinking in almost all ways.

"Please be informed that on the one hand, professional mathematicians are usually trained in a fairly extreme form of logic which can be difficult to apply in undiluted form to most practical situations."
And many kudos to their ability to apply maths to maths. However, since the OP was promoting the idea that studying maths is applicable to studies that are not maths, this is obviously irrelevant.

"Going by your self-gratulatory comments, philosophy students should excel all others in, say, computer programming in which a certain form of exact logic is a must. But that’s not true, is it?"
Actually, my point entirely was the opposite: that people who want to do well at exercise science should study exercise science; that people who want to do well at computer programming should study computer programming. The fact that I am poor at maths but good at other forms of logic, poor at physics but good at exercise science, is an example of how completely unrelated these topics are (even though maths is an extension of formal logic).

Professional physicists and mathematicians are undoubtedly some of the smartest people in our society, and undoubtedly responsible for a lot of our scientific progress. Don't think for a moment that I intend to mar them at all (in contrast to you and philosophers) - I have immense respect for the work of some of these people both present and past. And my poor grasping of some of these subjects is one of my greatest intellectual regrets. But the study of maths and physics (beyond high school level) should be left to would-be mathematicians and physicists, not people who want to pursue entirely different subjects.
 
" or Anatomy or Physiology if that were possible ", it is obvious that you don't know what are units of study covered by this graduation.
Anatomy and physiology come first, and :
- human cell biology, neuroscience, biology, psychology,biochemistry,
- functional musculoskeletal, body systems,
- biomechanics of human movements ( mathematics )
- muscles mechanism and training, physiology and training adaptations,
- fundamentals of exercise science, health sciences and research,
- nutrition health and performance, growth, development and aging,
- exercises testing and prescription, motor control and learning,
- exercises health and diseases sports and psychology,
- anatomical analysis of exercise, exercises and rehabilitation,
- physiological testing and training, projects in exercise and sport sciences,
- exercise pharmacology and immunology, biomechanics of sports techniques
- laws and business, and they are more others specifics studies.
Elite athletes are trained by Strength and Conditioning coach graduate in Sports and Applied Sciences.
Fitness trainers and kettlebells instructors are " not " graduate, but certified, and sometimes only 3 days courses are enough to work in the " fitness industry ", and to charge 120$/ hour in personal training.
Instead of " help the client to achieve his goal ", it is, " help the client to be injured ".
So, Daniel, are you talking about " graduate in sports and applied science " who are training with competitive athletes or " certified personal trainer in fast track " who are working for fat loss and general fitness in gyms, most of them loved to ad " master in.."," Coach in... ", " Senior ", " director ",the more tittles, the less they learnt, at least In Australia.
Samuel, I agree with everything you wrote.
 
Charles, you guessed wrong, I didn't major in physics or math; I was undeclared, then created my own major, then biochem major, and as of now I don't have a degree.

 

NickWM, if Pavel was exercise science that is interesting and would be great to hear his thoughts on this. As far DOCTOR Stuart McGill, I don't know him and cannot speak for him so it is just my guess that he learned most of his important stuff in med school, not as an undergraduate in EXERCISE SCIENCE.  And I would bet a lot of money on that.  Same thing I believe would be true for a PT learning most of their stuff obtaining their DPT.

 

Samuel, I think you raise a fair point that it makes more sense to make the ciriculum better rather than junk it.  But on the other hand maybe being a strength coach isn't really suited well to classroom education.  I believe the most important parts to becoming a strength coach would be actually doing various exercises, sports, doing different stuff like powerlifting, kettlebells, primal move, etc. and learning in a college setting is not designed for this.  The other important part of becoming a strength coach I think is getting experience training people and college isn't designed for this either.

You are wrong, I did not brag about my logic skills.  I will do that now: my logic skills are superb.

Being an athlete will not make someone a good strength coach, but it will provide them with the opportunities to learn to be good.  Anatomy and physiology are really important you have a good point there.  And yes, working with a powerlifter can help you train a cyclist.  I believe that is a big idea behind strongfirst and one thing Pavel does... for example he may look at how gymnasts do something with bodyweight and then he sees it works great and is a part of his training and gives it to firemen or whoever else comes to this site.

Just consider this for a moment, if you are a young person and want to be the best strength coach in the world what are you gonna think, "I want to study with Dr Mcdonalt at Skylar University he has this great course on nutrition for athletes"?? I doubt it.  You are gonna think "Wow, look at Lebron and how he moves, I want to work with him and see how he does that.  Teams in the NFL now screen their players with the FMS? What is that how can I work with the guy who created the FMS? Look at Pavel's dad so strong at that age what was the training that got him there how can I work with Pavel?"
 
Christine, thanks for the response as you actually prove my point quite a bit.  Your cirriculum looks a lot like the cirriculum for a doctoral in physical therapy and nothing at all like an undergrad in exercise science.  I am looking at the required courses for exercise science major at my old school UMass Boston and cell biology, neuroscience, psychology, biochemistry, biomechanics of human movement are not included... just to name a few.  I dunno maybe I am wrong and other schools have sweet programs but UMB is at least average school I think and probably better than that.  I am sure many others from that dream list of courses are not included as well.
 
Solution - Don't throw out the degree; Improve it! Base much of the curriculum on the great books: Supertraining, Science and Practice of Strength Training, and Easy Strength.

Re Math and Physics... In order to truly understand the first two, you need at least a rudimentary understanding of physics and differential equations.

 
 
@Samuel. As you will agree, this is not the forum in which to argue out our particular points of disagreement. Can be done elsewhere.
 
Troll, much? :)

i've got a degree in physiology, and now I own a completely unrelated business. Fact is that what you study in school less much less important than what you learn through experience and self led study throughout your career.

Some of the most educated people I know never went to college at all.
 
Daniel - your old school is probably not a very good one then. I am currently in second year of doing a Bachelor of Exercise and Sport Science, and some of the units in my course are:
-Anatomy
-Physiology (core physiology at first year, exercise physiology in second, and 'Physiology of Sport Performance' in third)
-Biomechanics (basic biomech, as well as 'Clinical and Sport Biomechanics' in third year)
-Motor learning
-Sport psychology
-'Applied Sport Science'
-Programming
-And, critically, a compulsory placement in a professional sport or exercise workplace to get field experience
You also have a few electives, and I've chosen to pursue nutrition for those.

 
"And yes, working with a powerlifter can help you train a cyclist.  I believe that is a big idea behind strongfirst and one thing Pavel does… for example he may look at how gymnasts do something with bodyweight and then he sees it works great and is a part of his training and gives it to firemen or whoever else comes to this site."
Click to expand...
The problem is most people are not Pavel. And if you take people without any foundational learning in the field, they're not going to understand the basics of how or why certain things do or don't work. And if they don't have that, how are they ever going to be able to figure out how to apply things to different settings? Some people might be able to get something out of a powerlifter's training to improve a cyclist: but I've got a newsflash for you, most of the time you're going to be better suited knowing about VO2 max when working with an endurance athlete. That's a term that is not going to come up with a powerlifter.
"Just consider this for a moment, if you are a young person and want to be the best strength coach in the world what are you gonna think, “I want to study with Dr Mcdonalt at Skylar University he has this great course on nutrition for athletes”?? I doubt it.  You are gonna think “Wow, look at Lebron and how he moves, I want to work with him and see how he does that.  Teams in the NFL now screen their players with the FMS? What is that how can I work with the guy who created the FMS? Look at Pavel’s dad so strong at that age what was the training that got him there how can I work with Pavel?”"
Click to expand...
And if you're the strength and conditioning coach behind the teams in the NFL or Lebron, when the kids come applying to intern, are you going to pick a kid who has a maths degree, a kid who didn't go to college at all, or a kid who has an exercise science degree?
"As far DOCTOR Stuart McGill, I don’t know him and cannot speak for him so it is just my guess that he learned most of his important stuff in med school"
Click to expand...
You know that "Dr" is given to anyone with a PhD right?
His background, for the record, is quite easy to find online:
"BPE (Toronto)
MSc (Ottawa)
PhD (Waterloo)"
So... the foremost spine biomechanist in the world started with a Bachelor of Physical Education.
 
Daniel,
It is clear in your last post, that " sports and sciences " studies are not the same in USA, in Australia and in Europe.
I wrote briefly the theory, but physicals and clinicals units are also part of this degree. No idea of what this sports and sciences degree look like in USA ?
 
Also going back to what I wrote, what can you do with it? Yes Pavel has done well but for the large most part does it really pay off?
 
Nick, every degree can be used for something, but people seem to only be interested in the quantity and availability of conventional jobs a particular degree directly leads to. As far as exercise science goes, a grad's options would be:
-Working with athletes as a strength and conditioning coach
-Working with elite athletes as an applied exercise scientist (it's common at the elite level for there to be consultants for specific sub-disciplines - an athlete might have their normal coach, a general S&C coach, a biomechanist, a lab-based exercise scientist, a nutritionist, etc. This wouldn't be straight out of uni as you need some experience first in a more generalised role, but it's a career possibility)
-Working with special populations in a clinical setting (would require a year or two of postgrad clinical exercise physiology)
-Research
-Of course, any number of general health, sport or exercise jobs that may not specifically require the degree, but would improve their chances of being selected amongst other applicants due to having higher qualifications.
Does it pay off? Probably about as well as doing a degree purely for the sake of getting a job easily after graduation, and then hating your career for the rest of your life. I'm fairly disdainful of the conventional life pathway (although if it works for you or anyone else, that's great), which is why I'm working on my second bachelor's degree and have absolutely no regrets about doing the first. But the point is this - there are kids doing the same degree as me who seem to have gone into it purely because it had the word "sport" in the name (Bachelor of Exercise and Sport Science) and they like sport and didn't know what else they wanted to do. They'll probably not get much out of it. Other people know exactly what they want to get out of the degree and where they want to go, and if they put in the work they'll probably get what they want. This is the same with every degree.
 
Russel nailed it

it doesn't need to be done away with - it simply needs to be improved.

Research lags 1-5 years (if not more) behind

Text books lag 3-5 years behind (this is becoming a much smaller issue with on-line updates etc...)

What the degrees need is lots of hands on work training others and implementing what they learn since I run into exercise science dgreed people who have never trained someone.

Gandhi said - be the change you want to see in the world

So work with to improve don't eliminate unless truly broken
 
Daniel,
This curriculum looks for " you " like a doctoral in physical therapy, but this curriculum look similar as Samuel ?
When you are studying in " sports and applied sciences ", the very first think is to learn and understand perfectly how the human body works.
I don't think we are talking about the same studies, it is impossible that biomechanics of human movements, psychology, neurosciences...are not part of this graduation. Impossible...studies are not the same everywhere :
To be a Personal Trainer in Australia, 3 months are enough, in France, it is a 4 years graduation, not the same knowledges but they supposed to do the same job...
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom