I think what he meant by physique and skill was the "skill" portion was in reference to one's coaching skill
Other/Mixed Training certification opinions/recommendations
- Thread starter bluejeff
- Start date
Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
bluejeff
Level 7 Valued Member
Maybe it's different in different places. When I first started coaching at my old gym, they did not require a certification. They did require trainer's insurance, which required me to create an LLC. The insurance I used did not require a certification.
Regarding @Abishai 's reply (sorry you kind of got dogpiled on....):
-I have met many super strong athletes whose coaching abilities were mediocre at best. I have always been into calisthenics, and that corner of the fitness world is FULLLLLL of super strong people with terrible-to-mediocre advice. They are strong, lean, have big muscles, and can do cool feats, so people want to follow how they got there. Sometimes it works to follow suit, sometimes not. There are also some people in that community that use a lot of evidence-based approaches, and integrate principles from other strength training modalities.
Again, a good trainer needs to be able to prescribe exercises particular to a client. This was my personal struggle when I taught group calisthenics and handstand classes. The range of what each student needed could be pretty varied, so I had to find ways to make it work in a group setting. Personal training was easier because I could deduce exactly what each client needed for their particular goals and situation.
That said, I will repeat what I said earlier, as I believe it is an important factor:
-Most certifications do not require hands on experience, which is the most important part of becoming a good trainer. Even the CSCS, which requires a bachelor's degree, does not (to my knowledge) disriminate what that degree was in. You could have a BA in economics and get your CSCS, never having worked with people. I would 100-times over prefer someone without certs, who produced the results I am after, than someone with alphabet soup after their name who didn't. I would especially prefer someone with less credentials who was pleasant to work with than someone who is not. I have seen trainers with credentials who were terrible communicators. I know that's a bit of a generalization; I am not saying that people with certs don't produce results.
-regarding the "physique" portion: There are trainers, PTs, etc out there who do not have impressive physiques but produce great results in their clients. That said, they probably get overlooked by some people because they don't "look the part." If I am doing this as a side-gig, I feel like I ought to at least partially look the part, and partially look like I know what I am doing. This is especially important to me, if I am to attract clients outside of my social network.
I interpreted that as skill in exercises. Skill in coaching is the most important part of being a trainer. That wouldn’t be an unpopular option at all! Or shouldn’t be. I’d totally agree with that.
Abishai
Level 5 Valued Member
Let me clarify.
Although there are people who have freak genetics, lifting for a long time teaches you lessons that certs won't.
"Skill" meant lifting skill and teaching skill (If people see that you have trained others successfully).
The better someone is at something the less likely it was by chance or genetics.
As far as gyms requiring a cert... fair point.
I will admit my biases...I train others without a cert. I have read over a hundred books on fitness and nutrition and have trained bodybuilders, BJJ fighters, and regular everyday folk. It drives me crazy when I see some trainer with a cert recommending reverse dumbell jazzercize jump squats on a bosu ball.
Although there are people who have freak genetics, lifting for a long time teaches you lessons that certs won't.
"Skill" meant lifting skill and teaching skill (If people see that you have trained others successfully).
The better someone is at something the less likely it was by chance or genetics.
As far as gyms requiring a cert... fair point.
I will admit my biases...I train others without a cert. I have read over a hundred books on fitness and nutrition and have trained bodybuilders, BJJ fighters, and regular everyday folk. It drives me crazy when I see some trainer with a cert recommending reverse dumbell jazzercize jump squats on a bosu ball.
Abishai
Level 5 Valued Member
If you have successfully trained others.....to me that's worth more than a cert. That was my intention with skill.
Then I agree very much with you there.
wespom9
Level 6 Valued Member
Great. N=1. It drives me crazy when I see people with no certifications doing stupid stuff with clients too. I don't think that argument holds up. See below.
Probabilities. Chances of a gym goer who is decently 'in shape' (read: somewhat low in body fat) and can train someone appropriately - very low. Chance of degreed/certified who does not look the same but can train someone appropriately - much higher.
If you walked into a gym and saw a couple trainers, or a couple individuals who look in good shape. Where are you more likely to have someone help you improve?
Abishai
Level 5 Valued Member
I am not just talking about decent shape. At the risk of tooting my horn-I have put on 40 lbs mass and maintained a sub 10 bf% for over 10 years, can do one-arm pullups and pushups, levers, and HSPU, and have trained tons of clients with most of them putting significant amounts of mass and have shredded aesthetics with high level bodyweight abilities.
If I would see that and see a skinny guy in the gym that has a lot of theoretical knowledge and a cert......I'm sorry but I will pick the real-world experience any day of the week.
By your metric, you would never train under Arnold, Paul Anderson, Kirk Karwarski or Bob Hoffman.
Aren’t you also like 22?
wespom9
Level 6 Valued Member
@Abishai
a couple things here, and I want to start by saying this is a good discussion.
I'm making general observations vs your specific ones, which is straw-manning your argument a bit. Arnold and co are not typical.(Nor, for that matter, may they have knowledge on improving things other than physique, such as say athleticism). I never said that guys like that I wouldn't listen to; what I said was the 'average gym goer of low body fat'.
Number two is that you're conflating looks with coaching ability. a 'skinny guy with a cert' could mean that he is not interested in hypertrophy for his personal sake. Or if he's not ridiculously strong because powerlifting is not his goal. Does that make him a lesser ability as a coach? The corollary is also that coaches don't have to be the best athletes to coach the sport/event well. Does it help to have experience as an athlete? Obviously.
Experience matters. No questions there. I was a better trainer after 10 years in the field than when I graduated. But you need the knowledge of how the body functions, parameters to improve different abilities, assess vital KPI's for the goals, etc. The average strong or low body fat guy is going to 98/100 times have less knowledge on that then someone degreed and certified
To go back to my first post - if you have all that knowledge, just take the test and prove it.
a couple things here, and I want to start by saying this is a good discussion.
I'm making general observations vs your specific ones, which is straw-manning your argument a bit. Arnold and co are not typical.(Nor, for that matter, may they have knowledge on improving things other than physique, such as say athleticism). I never said that guys like that I wouldn't listen to; what I said was the 'average gym goer of low body fat'.
Number two is that you're conflating looks with coaching ability. a 'skinny guy with a cert' could mean that he is not interested in hypertrophy for his personal sake. Or if he's not ridiculously strong because powerlifting is not his goal. Does that make him a lesser ability as a coach? The corollary is also that coaches don't have to be the best athletes to coach the sport/event well. Does it help to have experience as an athlete? Obviously.
Experience matters. No questions there. I was a better trainer after 10 years in the field than when I graduated. But you need the knowledge of how the body functions, parameters to improve different abilities, assess vital KPI's for the goals, etc. The average strong or low body fat guy is going to 98/100 times have less knowledge on that then someone degreed and certified
To go back to my first post - if you have all that knowledge, just take the test and prove it.
Abishai
Level 5 Valued Member
true.
My intent was someone who isn't typical. And I would only go to Arnold on BB-related subjects. His advice on athleticism was awful.
But that is exactly the point. If you know exactly what realm you want to train in, train under experts in that field who have successfully replicated their method among many different types of people and have no subject sample bias.
agreed.
If there is a good reason why he does not have performance/ look like(age, illness, diff goals ect) then my rule does not apply.
I listen to Pavel on bodybuilding despite him not exactly looking the part because I am aware that mass isn't his goal (He competes in Kyokushin if i am not mistaken)
true but I think there is a certain cutoff where you can tell that someone has done his homework.
You can't DL like Derak Toshner or look like Arnold without having learned a lot about their respective field.
I have the NASM-CPT and paid for the lifetime renewal. So each 2 years I just have to do the CPE entries, CPR, and pay a smaller renewal fee.