Your view on assessments and programming?

[bvonrod]

I can't necessarily say that this is a recent development as I don't know. But there seems to be a large push in the ABSOLUTE importance of performing various initial static/dynamic assessments on clients to determine imbalances/compensations/postural deviations which may allow the IDEAL corrective programming. I am just interested in hearing your opinion on the necessity of these tests and if you as a coach use any type of assessments on trainees that affect programming? Thank you much sir!

[Mark Rippetoe]

I have written about this on this forum recently. I am of the opinion that it is silly to expect an inexperienced person to perform a movement correctly in which they have received no instruction, and that it provides the trainer with no useful information. "Assessing the kinetic chain" with an overhead squat, for example, the athlete having never performed the damn thing before, can only provide you with the observation that he is doing it wrong. The fact that he is not keeping his knees out does not necessarily tell you anything other than the fact that he has not been taught to do so. Ditto the correct shoulder position, spinal alignment, bar/foot alignment, or any other aspect of correct technique.

I'd much rather proceed from the assumption that the trainee does not know how to squat, but that I can teach him to do so correctly if I am sufficiently capable as a trainer. If I do it this way, the problems that are encountered that might indicate "imbalances" are corrected by the bilateral/multi-joint nature of the squat itself, which, when correctly performed, permits no imbalances. So if I can teach the squat correctly, which I have to do anyway, I don't need to identify anything except the correct cue to elicit the correct movement pattern, itself inherently balanced.

Of course, it is fun to charge $200.00 for an "assessment."

[elVarouza]

I actually have another post bookmarked on this subject from Rip's Q&A awhile back because it's interesting and (I think) provides a compelling argument towards dispelling a lot of the crap about 'imbalances' and 'muscle activation'. There are two good posts from Rip in it:

http://startingstrength.com/resource...ad.php?t=11644

[matclone]

For what it's worth, it seems that I read an article by Vince Gironda years ago, in a muscle mag of course, in which he said basically the same thing Rip is saying--that barbell movements will correct imbalances--that the nervous system will do its thing to straighten things out.

[bvonrod]

Thanks all for the input. The link was perfect as Eric Cressey is where my question was derived from as well. He is extremely knowledgeable and damn strong and his approach works for him and his clients but there was a nagging part of me saying "it shouldn't need to be this complex". And as a tangent....I truly believe Coach Rip needs to branch out as a comedic writer, it's an untapped talent of his. He's the Dennis Leary of the Weightlifting World. His sarcastic one-liners make my day.

[Andy Baker (KSC)]

No matter who I am training (football player, fat middle aged guy, or grandma) their first session with me always begins with Back Squats and Presses, irrespective of what their overall goal is.

This is my assessment.

Back squats will tell me everything I need to know about lowerbody strength, lowerbody flexibility, and their aptitude to hold the critical "arched back" position which is so critical on just about every other movement we will ever do. Consequently back squats (even for sets of 5) are a decent test of cardiovascular fitness and muscular endurance. This is especially true on the first day where many many warm up sets might be used to find that target set of 5 that will be used for our work sets.

Presses will tell me everything I need to know about upperbody strength, and shoulder girdle flexibility.

Once I am done with these two exercises, I have a pretty damn good idea of who I am training...strengths, weaknesses, imbalances, injuries, aptitude, and personality.

[Mark Rippetoe]

And they have learned more that an "assessment of their kinetic chain" would have taught them.

[bvonrod]

As always, everything makes total sense and am in total agreement. Just annoying that the 15 billion certifying organizations don't find it this logical. Thanks again.