Other Coaching Credentials - A General Question about this Profession

[Shawnlock]

Dear coaches - I am curious about your general opinion about the coaching profession in strength training area. What other credentials in your eyes are relatively reputable and widely acknowledged besides SSC? What other coaching certificates, if any, did you have (or still do) before you became a Starting Strength Coach?

The urban legend has it that the passing rate to become an SSC is below 30%. I also understand that SSC has its own assessment system and doesn't require any other certificate as a "prerequisite". Most of what it takes to become an SSC is detailed in this post: https://startingstrength.com/resourc...gth-coach.html. I have no knowledge on how difficult to obtain other training/coaching credentials, but assume that SSC certificate is one of the hardest, so an SSC should have more of a prerogative, if you will, to comment and judge other credentials. And it seems like a fun and informing topic to discuss!

[Michael Wolf]

Other credentials/certifications in the fitness industry? I haven't done it but I hear precision nutrition is decent. Besides that, I don't know of any. I was certified by ACE from 2006-2010, and NSCA from 2008-2017, and both were a waste of time. I kept the NSCA so long on the chance I'd need it for employment at some future point, but just couldn't justify wasting my time and money anymore.
If I ever do need it again, I'll take the damn test again, and also be really disappointed that I let myself get into such a position.

I've had a USAW cert since 2010, it's still current, but even at the time I took it, when I knew much less than I do now, I didn't learn anything by taking the course. It just checked a box. I picked up a few useful cues from the guys who happened to be assistant coaching that weekend, but some of the other assistant coaches were beyond useless. One of them was - I'm sadly not kidding - the 17 year old son of the guy in charge of the host facility. But the point is, the actual course material itself was super basic, and they practically gave you the answers to the test so that anyone who paid, showed up, and had a heartbeat would pass. I've taken other courses and cert weekends, but haven't found any nor do I know of any that attempt any kind of systematic, first principles analysis of the kind that SS does. Some specialty courses are useful if you want to know more about that specialty, but they still basically give the cert to anyone who shows up (or there's some kind of fitness test, which is not the same as coaching competency - i.e. the RKC snatch test doesn't tell someone whether you can coach the movements, only that you yourself are fit enough to pass the test).

I've heard precision nutrition is pretty good, though not sure if that qualifies as "fitness," and I haven't taken it myself to know personally.

I don't know our exact passing rate, but I think it's something like 15%. It would be lower if we still tested everybody, but you have to opt-in to be evaluated as a coach, so that ~15% is only evaluating those who think they have a chance of passing. It's not rocket science, but it does require both practical competency and theoretical knowledge that you can't obtain from scratch in a weekend course, or even in a few months.

That isn't to say there aren't other individuals or organizations to learn anything from about lifting. Like RTS and programming for advanced lifters, for example.

And it's also not to say that the SSC tests and evaluates for everything one could possibly know in the fitness realm. You couldn't use the SSC to justify getting hired as a pilates instructor, or running coach. Hell, it doesn't even evaluate for programming for advanced lifters. Just that I don't know of any other certification that, if you hold it, actually demonstrates a solid level of competency in the specific purview of what that cert is supposed to evaluate. In the case of the SSC, that purview is:
* The ability to teach anyone how to properly perform the basic barbell exercises in accordance with the SS model, and understand when a deviation from the model is required because of a special circumstance and adjust accordingly (can't get into low bar position due to shoulders; shouldn't clean bc of age or a specific issue, etc).
* The ability to determine the correct starting weight for each exercise (which can be less than the empty bar for some special populations), and then program the person effectively to do a proper LP from there.
* The ability to finish out the LP, extending it to the extent it can be, while continuing to improve technique as you go, and not allowing it to degrade beyond acceptability when the weights get heavy.
* The ability to successfully transition a lifter into the first stage of early intermediate training.
* The ability to explain, satisfactorily and in detail, the reasons why we teach the lifts the way we do and program for novices the way we do.

So the purview is limited, but within that purview, we're the only fitness cert I know of that does a really good job of ensuring that the credential means competence at the things it's supposed to. No one is perfect, and we've refined the process over time so fewer and fewer slip through the cracks. And many SSCs have expertise outside the purview of the cert, like Robert Santana or Feigenbaum are nutrition guys, along with some others. Feigenbaum and Reynolds and Baker may have different approaches, but they've all coached many lifters well beyond the early intermediate stage. Hell, so have I.

The point is that the SSC doesn't evaluate for those things, but does a really good job at identifying competency at the things it does evaluate for.

[CJ Gotcher]

At one point, I earned the Precision Nutrition credential and learned a good bit of basic nutrition and nutrition coaching/psychology from the process of reading through the text and preparing for the exam. It's definitely an intro primer, but it got me started thinking on some of the basic details of nutrition (beyond just calorie balance) as well as the different classifications and types of diets. This is an interesting point, though: the fact that the SSC is harder to earn doesn't necessarily qualify us to speak to the accuracy or validity of a nutrition cert. We don't want to fall into the trap of our 4-letter-acronym peers and assert authority beyond our credible scope.

I've heard Jordan recommend the USATF Track and Field Certification, IIRC, but you'd have to ask him directly.

If you're looking to get coaching time, CF gyms are an excellent source of willing trainees who care about better movement, and the CF-L1 is a prerequisite. It's also an example of a well-structured, efficiently-run, almost factory-output seminar, and their layered approach to coaching is useful in groups. Still, the level 1 trainer course is limited by the breadth of its scope, the ideological core of some of its selling points, and the inevitable use of PVC pipes in the group environment to coach barbell movements. Although they're a necessary evil in classes that large, covering that many movements over that broad a skill range, they're one step above useless at teaching even a half- decent lifter anything they don't know.

[Michael Wolf]

This is an interesting point, though: the fact that the SSC is harder to earn doesn't necessarily qualify us to speak to the accuracy or validity of a nutrition cert. We don't want to fall into the trap of our 4-letter-acronym peers and assert authority beyond our credible scope.

Yes - I didn't intend to imply otherwise, but if I did, my mistake. I agree with this - SSC provides zero in the way of formal nutritional education or knowledge, nor does it claim to.

If you're looking to get coaching time, CF gyms are an excellent source of willing trainees who care about better movement, and the CF-L1 is a prerequisite. It's also an example of a well-structured, efficiently-run, almost factory-output seminar, and their layered approach to coaching is useful in groups. Still, the level 1 trainer course is limited by the breadth of its scope, the ideological core of some of its selling points, and the inevitable use of PVC pipes in the group environment to coach barbell movements. Although they're a necessary evil in classes that large, covering that many movements over that broad a skill range, they're one step above useless at teaching even a half- decent lifter anything they don't know.

I've worked at a CF Gym for the past 3.5 years without having had to get the L-1. This is surely one of my greatest accomplishments (I kid, I kid). However, my gf has it, all the other coaches at the gym have it, and a bunch of the members too, some of whom have gone on to become coaches at our gym or elsewhere. I've talked to a lot of them, and others I know who have taken it, quite a bit.

It's impossible to go through the breadth of movements and topics that the CFL1 covers in one weekend and do them all justice, even if every participant was already well versed in all study materials and preparation. The fact that every participant isn't, and that they cover all that material anyway, and that they all come out with the cert anyway, tells you something. Not that it's useless, but that you need to apply a healthy dose of caveat emptor, and that while some topics may be covered well there, the obtaining of the credential in no way represents a high a degree of competence in the topics covered by the weekend course.

[Shawnlock]

Thank you, Coach Wolf and CJ, for the detailed responses, especially articulating the scope of authority of the SSC. My takeaway from this discussion is that each credential has a limited purview and shouldn't be regarded as a "jack of all trades" stamp, not to mention different individuals have their own sets of skills and experience in a certain areas. It makes obvious sense but I don't think a layman would think that extra step because reputation and recognition are the traits people care about for a credential in general. It's like (correct me if this is an inappropriate analogy) a lawyer specialized in criminal cases might know very little about divorce settlements. So thank you for bringing that to the front lobe of my brain!

I was certified by ACE from 2006-2010, and NSCA from 2008-2017, and both were a waste of time. I kept the NSCA so long on the chance I'd need it for employment at some future point, but just couldn't justify wasting my time and money anymore.
If I ever do need it again, I'll take the damn test again, and also be really disappointed that I let myself get into such a position.

When you say "waste of time", does it just mean there is no educational value in getting these certificates? It seems that they nevertheless provide some benefits regarding employment as you've mentioned. And is the test really easy like a driver's license and everything is sort of like a formality, only meeting the lowest requirement of seeking employment in the industry?

[Michael Wolf]

When you say "waste of time", does it just mean there is no educational value in getting these certificates? It seems that they nevertheless provide some benefits regarding employment as you've mentioned. And is the test really easy like a driver's license and everything is sort of like a formality, only meeting the lowest requirement of seeking employment in the industry?

Someone who has zero knowledge or education about anatomy, physiology, and kinesiology will know more after studying for these certifications than they did before. But that's a low bar (pun intended). And I'm not sure that knowledge is worth the things you learn that are flat out wrong, such as how to perform and coach the most fundamental barbell movements, and program them for strength. The other stuff can be learned elsewhere anyway, without getting the misinformation thrown in, under the color of authority.

[Andy Baker (KSC)]

I was certified by NSCA, NASM, and USAW in 2006 and got the Crossfit Level I in 2008.

NASM was completely a waste of time. I only took the test because at the time my employer required it. I can safely say I learned nothing useful from this cert.

NSCA was better although I don't remember much of the material from the test or study material. As part of your CEU requirements you can attend NSCA seminars and conferences and I attended several over the course of a few years. The material from these conferences made me embarrassed to be a part of the industry.

USAW was better. I had an outstanding knowledgeable coach (Mike Conroy) who of course taught us all the stuff from the USAW manuals, but spent even more time with us shelling out a lot of his knowledge from several decades of in the trenches experience. I still have all my notes from that clinic. Some of the nuggets of wisdom I pulled from him I still put into practice today in my coaching practice.

Crossfit Level I was okay, some useful stuff, some obviously ridiculous stuff. Most of the people there were not coaches, were not lifters, and had no business coaching the general public, but walked away with a certification to coach anyways and a license to open their own crossfit gym if desired. Not good.

Fortunately for me I had had enough time under the bar myself, had spent a lot of time in different gyms around some really good lifters, and had done enough coaching myself to be able to sort the good from the bad for the most part. The sad part is that so many young fitness professionals are trying to do the right thing and be professional by gobbling up certifications, attending conferences, reading manuals, etc and are being led into the desert to starve by people who should know better, but don't.

[Pete Troupos]

SSC provides zero in the way of formal nutritional education or knowledge, nor does it claim to.

I thought all we needed to know was GOMAD.

[Michael Wolf]

I thought all we needed to know was GOMAD.

That's why our primary social media hashtag is #GOMADandGoodmornings. We try to fit all the strawmen into one.

[Shawnlock]

I was certified by NSCA, NASM, and USAW in 2006 and got the Crossfit Level I in 2008.

NASM was completely a waste of time. I only took the test because at the time my employer required it. I can safely say I learned nothing useful from this cert.

NSCA was better although I don't remember much of the material from the test or study material. As part of your CEU requirements you can attend NSCA seminars and conferences and I attended several over the course of a few years. The material from these conferences made me embarrassed to be a part of the industry.

USAW was better. I had an outstanding knowledgeable coach (Mike Conroy) who of course taught us all the stuff from the USAW manuals, but spent even more time with us shelling out a lot of his knowledge from several decades of in the trenches experience. I still have all my notes from that clinic. Some of the nuggets of wisdom I pulled from him I still put into practice today in my coaching practice.

Crossfit Level I was okay, some useful stuff, some obviously ridiculous stuff. Most of the people there were not coaches, were not lifters, and had no business coaching the general public, but walked away with a certification to coach anyways and a license to open their own crossfit gym if desired. Not good.

Fortunately for me I had had enough time under the bar myself, had spent a lot of time in different gyms around some really good lifters, and had done enough coaching myself to be able to sort the good from the bad for the most part. The sad part is that so many young fitness professionals are trying to do the right thing and be professional by gobbling up certifications, attending conferences, reading manuals, etc and are being led into the desert to starve by people who should know better, but don't.

Thank you, sir, for breaking down these certificates and sharing your valuable personal experience and thoughts! A follow-up question: Do you consider USAW to be the most reputable and widely-recognized certificate of all mentioned above?

Additionally, I'd like to attempt an analogy to higher education here. Having a bachelor's degree doesn't necessarily mean you are any smarter or more useful than a person without it. Your skills and knowledge cannot be truly attested by a certificate or a degree. However, sadly and unfortunately, we are living in this huge organism that measures people through the certifications and degrees as a mainstream custom. The reality kind of requires a young professional, in almost any field, to knock open a few doors at the start of their careers with these arbitrary measurements that are almost a waste of time to obtain. I completely believe that real skills and knowledge are more often than not obtained from a great mentor and/or tons of real experience in the field, and most importantly your own willingness to learn the right things. On the other hand, in a more cynical way, would you agree that being certified with all these acronyms has helped smoothen your professional development in terms of gaining more access to different employment choices? If you want to spread your true knowledge to a wider crowd than those who have no business coaching the general public, I'd imagine having a reputable and widely-recognized certificate would help get you there faster and easier. Or maybe in the strength training world, performance records like your placements in competitions and meets speak more volume than certifications?