Article: Should Personal Trainers and Coaches Be Licensed by the State?

[Brodie Butland]

To the first question I think that you are misrepresenting the ACSM's position on squat depth. However, I don't think this was deliberate. My question for you would be do you think the squat depth in the picture represents their description in the text underneath the picture (i.e. do you perceive the thighs to be parallel to the floor?)?

I appreciate your strange apologetics in trying to suggest that the ACSM is just really idiotic when it comes to selecting pictures. But perhaps there is an alternative explanation that makes more sense: the picture conveys exactly what the ACSM thinks a squat should look like. Note the similarity in the "bottom" position of the squat in this video (from a channel called "Master the ACSM PT Exam") to the picture.

The second half of your post seems to be a weird line of questioning given what I was asking. I am going to ignore that your questioning does not address the questions I asked previously (while being fully aware that you are changing the topic). In my opinion there should be more concern when placing a barbell on the back of a 90 year old than the back of a 20 year old. I hope we can agree on that. However, that is not to say that there are not some 90 year old individuals who couldn't handle it. To this point, I personally don't know of any organization that has the stated position that barbell training is an absolute contraindication with age. If you know of such organization please provide the reference.

Dude...every Starting Strength Coach has a story about a doctor or physical therapist telling one of our clients that they shouldn't be lifting heavy because they'll hurt themselves. Every. Single. One. Those of us who work with older populations hear it even more, and have in some cases lost clients as a result of it.

And guess who gets seats on The Board to determine The Standards under every proposed licensure law proposed in the last decade? Yep...doctors and physical therapists. Or in the case of DC, the physical therapists got every seat on The Board.

While I am certain that Sully is a very capable trainer, you have to remember that he is an exception. I would be more concerned about the 18 year old kid working at "insert random globo-gym franchise" who wants to place the barbell on the back of a 90 year old. Should the kid who got hired because he looks good in a tank top be allowed to work with this population without any regulations? I am certain that Sully would be able to meet the criteria for any required certification the state requires. However, I would not say the same for "tank-top boy". I am more than OK with creating a mild irritation for Sully to become certified if it prevents "tank-top boy" from injuring people he has no business training. To be honest, the ratio of "tank-top boys" to Sullies in this field are 1000:1 (and that is being generous). In my personal opinion, if you are going to train populations who are high-risk, or if you are using exercise to treat a medical condition there should be some type of regulation.

This is where I think you are terribly naive about the personal training industry. Those "tank top boys" you are referring to more often than not have a personal training certification, because their "random globo-gym franchise" employer requires it. Examples from a cursory search:
--Gold's Gym (requires ACSM, NSCA, NASM, or ACE)
--Lifetime Fitness (requires NCCA-accredited cert)
--YMCA (require NCCA-accredited cert)

And yet they're still completely shitty trainers. And they're still shitty trainers because they got their certifications without any demonstration of being able to coach someone in real time. So, no...imposing a licensure requirement would not solve the "tank-top boy" problem--to the contrary, it would cloak them with a completely undeserved air of authority even bigger than their alphabet-soup cert provides, and then give the client the privilege of paying more for the service from tank-top boy.

I would seriously consider reading my article the entire way through...I address all of this in it, far better and more thoroughly than I can on a forum.

[AndrewLewis]

Which one of the above cited organizations has cited that squats below parallel are bad for the knees and should not be coached?

Where has this organization ever stated that squats are bad for the knees?

Given that they say "this is the lowest position", I think it's fair to infer that to go lower would be considered dangerous or at least, undesirable:

NSCA Essentials of strength training and conditioning, third edition and ACE Personal Training Manual, third edition

NSCASquat.jpgACESquat.jpg

[Mark Rippetoe]

sumdumgoi, brcleeroy, shonuff & arcadian. My intent was to make it clear that I simply made another screen name and not to hide my identity. That is all. But that's really not what you are asking with your giant bolded font though, is it? I am not claiming to be anyone important, nor am I attempting to sell anything or am I representing any organization. Therefore my name is not really important and provides very little to the discussion. What part of my previous post do you disagree with? Do you perceive that post to be disrespectful or in any way inflammatory that warranted the ban? I easily imagine this could my "ghost's" identities last post before another attempt at a ban. If you don't want people disagreeing with you a pay site would probably be better option for you to be honest. My guess is that you will probably chop up this post or delete it completely so that you can come up with some stupid comment like you always do (predictability) if you decide to post it as you have done numerous times in the past. My guess is that your witty remarks following incomplete or deleted posts feeds your fragile ego. If you do decide to post this response in its entirety I would be more than happy to engage you in a discussion about the topic you wrote about. We may even agree on some of the points you made. You just need to stop acting the part of a child when someone dares to disagree with you on "your" message board or indicates that your views on the positions of various organizations are misleading/wrong.

You are merely an internet troll. Go away, child.

[Brodie Butland]

Given that they say "this is the lowest position", I think it's fair to infer that to go lower would be considered dangerous or at least, undesirable:

NSCA Essentials of strength training and conditioning, third edition and ACE Personal Training Manual, third edition

NSCASquat.jpgACESquat.jpg

Well, that's now two organizations pushing personal training licensure that teach half-squats. And they get seats on The Board that sets The Standards.

See the problem, sumdumgoi/brcleeroy/arkadian/shonuff/ghost? At this point it might be best to consider the first rule of holes: when you're in one, stop digging.

[Pluripotent]

I appreciate your strange apologetics in trying to suggest that the ACSM is just really idiotic when it comes to selecting pictures. But perhaps there is an alternative explanation that makes more sense: the picture conveys exactly what the ACSM thinks a squat should look like. Note the similarity in the "bottom" position of the squat in this video (from a channel called "Master the ACSM PT Exam") to the picture.

I think it's hilarious that in the video when he talks about the man-love spotting position he says, "yeah, it's pretty weird, but just do it, because that's what they want to see."

Basically he is restating my point, the absurdity of the requirements are in direct proportion to the power they have over you. No explanation of why it might be preferable to spot in that position. Just do it, because they say so. But I've always wondered, if a squat goes bad, what in the fuck does the man-love spotter hope to be able to do about it? For example:

Instagram

[Mark Rippetoe]

The funniest part is, this fucking clown says

sumdumgoi, brcleeroy, shonuff & arcadian. My intent was to make it clear that I simply made another screen name and not to hide my identity.

with a straight face.

My name is Mark Rippetoe. That is my identity. Your identity is: Internet Troll, and not even a particularly good one.

[LimieJosh]

While I do not think ACSM deserves much defending in the context of this discussion, I do not think it is fair to use the video of a non-affiliated person to criticise their standards. This is simply some guy on the internet trying to market himself as someone who knows what it takes to pass the exams, and so what happens on his videos is more a reflection of his perspective than of the actual standards of the organization.

As to that latter point, I think I can speak with uncommon authority as I ran one of the largest certification sites in the country for them for several years, albeit at a time prior to the CPT being available. I know that there are people involved in the certification process and in setting the standards who know what they are talking about. In some cases they may come to different conclusions that Rip, but this is a level of disagreement far less significant than one on whether squats are bad for the knees. However, the organization is a bureaucracy with a diverse membership and one in which many people get involved more for political reasons than because they have something important to offer (it became a required networking and career advancement tool, and was run as such). As such, someone who genuinely understands what it takes to coach the squat will end up with a comparable voice as someone whose background is the cellular adaptation of bone to weightlessness. The result is the stated expectations for the examiners are minimal, and tremendous discretion is given the individual examiners who may well have never had a barbell on their back in their lifetime. The result is a complete clusterfuck of squat can get a passing grade (if it even was tested, and of that there was no guarantee) and an understanding that "the eccentric involves flexion at the knee and hip" is weighted just as heavily as the performance/coaching part. It's also entirely possible given the format of the exam to utterly fail the squat and still get an overall passing grade. Now what happens when that trainer goes out into the marketplace?

And ultimately I think that is what is important. It does not matter what Rip's personal analysis of the squat is or how good his eye is at coaching it, if those standards are not passed down through the exam and reflected in the way the people with his certification coach. With ACSM, and their ilk, whatever rigor is involved in the development of the material is not passed down through the certification holders and you end up with people affiliated with the organization not meaningfully penalized for having beliefs that have no merit.

[footrat]

A lot of this back and forth is superfluous.

It comes down to this: an individual should be free to do what he wants with his money and his body, so long as he doesn't deprive another of their life, liberty, or property. If someone wants to hire a "trainer" with an alphabet soup of credentials, they should be free to do so. If someone wants to hire a guy with zero certification or formal education, so be it.

Licensure would not fail to produce quality coaching because the associations have their fingers in the pie; it would fail because the pie is being made by the government, and forcefed to us all.

[Brodie Butland]

A lot of this back and forth is superfluous.

It comes down to this: an individual should be free to do what he wants with his money and his body, so long as he doesn't deprive another of their life, liberty, or property. If someone wants to hire a "trainer" with an alphabet soup of credentials, they should be free to do so. If someone wants to hire a guy with zero certification or formal education, so be it.

Licensure would not fail to produce quality coaching because the associations have their fingers in the pie; it would fail because the pie is being made by the government, and forcefed to us all.

Your position would be very persuasive to a libertarian. It would not be persuasive to those who see some role for government licensure and regulation--which is a very large majority of the US population. Part of being persuasive is showing people how their values are furthered or harmed by a particular proposal. This is precisely why I did not write my article on this issue with a libertarian bent--I don't have to convince libertarians to oppose government licensure of personal trainers, because they're already on board before I write my first word...I have to convince a large plurality of everyone else.

[donfrancisco]

Dear Brodie,

I was under the impression that Coach Rip had written the article that started this thread. My bad. My post complimenting him should have been addressed to you.

I see your point about not writing the article in such a way as to only preach to the converted--liberty loving types in this case. It's refreshing to read that you put the effort into reaching an audience other then those that already agree with you. It seems that a lot of the writing I read, especially in politics, is intended for those that share the same bubble as the author.

Congrats again on the article. An important point well made.

Best always,

Francisco