This topic often leads to a good debate so I thought it would be interesting to post here. The question is: Should Personal Trainers have to meet physical requirements in order to become a trainer? If no, why? If yes, list SPECIFIC requirements that you think a trainer should have to meet. For example, looking good is not specific enough, running 1 mile in 8 minutes is. Imagine this would be implemented and regulated, so try to be as objective and measureable as possible.
Final note, if you do think there should be requirements are they the same for men and women, and what would you do with people who have disabilities or injuries? Thanks for your thoughts.
No. There SHOULD be stricter regulations about doing continuing education and finding out how much most of these people actually know (nothing). But performing physical tasks would just lead to all kinds of bullshit I think. I think fat out-of-shape trainers are ridiculous, as well as skinny out-of-shape trainers. But that’s there choice and I’m not running a fucking mile for anyone.
I’d say it depends on the clients you are working with.
Working with women, I would say mens health model type body.
Guys that are into bodybuilding, you would obviously want some mass. They will respect you less once they are bigger than you and might stop coming to you.
Athletic guys probably doesn’t matter as much, but they will have a lot of respect for you if you excel in the areas they are looking to improve.
First, I think a trainer should look in shape and be in shape. He (she) should practice what he preaches. I wouldn’t go to a mechanic who has a broken down car, or a chain smoking obese doctor. But that is my choice, just as it is those men’s choice of what profession they do. Those men may be very eduacated in that field even though they don’t look like it.
I would be hard pressed to set specific standards. There are to many variables. If you set, say an eight minute mile, an accomplished powerlifter (who trains all types of clients) might have trouble meeting standards. If you set a bench standard, what about the marathon runner who is a trainer? What about the guy who has seen his better days but has had an injury preventing him from working out?
If someone isn’t degreed in the field and doesn’t have any unique source of expertise (e.g. former high level athlete in the sport being trained), then they had better look damn good and or be exceptionally strong. I think putting exact numbers on this is difficult and defeats the purpose of this which is to ensure that a person has the requisite knowledge and/or experience to help others to reach a goal of significance. Exact numbers would require so much qualification to make it relevant with all sorts of tables, charts and “if-then” statements, that it would be ridiculous. I like the idea of requiring more quality continuing ed. better.
They should have superior technique in all exercises, especially the deadlift and the squat.
they should understand how to write a balanced program and also how to write a program to correct postural abnormalities.
They should continually seek to better themselves as opposed to getting a ‘job for now’.
If they do these 3 things, then they are okay and imo don’t need to look like anything. However I would not train with an out of shape trainer.
One thing I can’t stand is trainers trying to teach something they can’t do. Like all the so-called ‘boxing’ they do. Very rare to see anyone who knows what they are doing here.
The problem is fitness trainers tend to come and go so quick, often, the only way to know anything about them is to see how they’ve done on themselfs. In theory, if a guy had a long track record with a profolio of well trained people, he could be in horrible shape and be an excellent coach. Look at a lot of pro or college teams. Look at boxing. It should be the same for fitness. The problem is the turnover is so high, it’s hard to find anyone that’s been around long enough to have a solid track record.
[quote]nptitim wrote:
This topic often leads to a good debate so I thought it would be interesting to post here. The question is: Should Personal Trainers have to meet physical requirements in order to become a trainer? If no, why? If yes, list SPECIFIC requirements that you think a trainer should have to meet. For example, looking good is not specific enough, running 1 mile in 8 minutes is. Imagine this would be implemented and regulated, so try to be as objective and measureable as possible.
Final note, if you do think there should be requirements are they the same for men and women, and what would you do with people who have disabilities or injuries? Thanks for your thoughts.[/quote]
Should a basketball coach have to be as good as Mike Jordan before he coaches anyone?
Should a baseball coach have to be able to out-slug McGwire before he can teach someone to bat properly.
I don’t think so.
Interestingly enough, however, I DO think a brazilian jiujitsu coach should be one hell of a fighter…
My personal experience with trainers has been great. I’ve worked with only a few in my lifetime to prepare for high school football and baseball. These trainers were professionals in their sport(s) at one time. (This does NOT mean that all pro-athelets would make great trainers!) In teaching the techniques, they were able to demonstrate the proper form, which made it much easier to learn. Now that I’m playing college football, we have an awesome stregnth coach who acts as a personal trainer.
However, when I do go to the everyday type of gym with tons of machines and very few freeweights, the trainers appear to be complete idiots! Anyone experienced with exercise laughs at them. I don’t mean to criticize the entire field of personal trainers, I know there are some who are very capable.
Seriously though, you’d have to be a total moron to hire a fat-ass trainer…
No offense, but you’re insulting and and disrepecting Physical Therapists by referring to personal trainers as ‘PT’s’. The majority of PT’s have their master’s degrees and all licensed PT’s have to pass an extremely difficult test. Also, the current standard for PT students is 6 years of school to obtain their Ph.D in PT. This is in opposition to the majority (not all) of personal trainers who obtain their certification through a joke of a weekend or mail-in test.
[quote]cougarenegade wrote:
No offense, but you’re insulting and and disrepecting Physical Therapists by referring to personal trainers as ‘PT’s’. The majority of PT’s have their master’s degrees and all licensed PT’s have to pass an extremely difficult test. Also, the current standard for PT students is 6 years of school to obtain their Ph.D in PT. This is in opposition to the majority (not all) of personal trainers who obtain their certification through a joke of a weekend or mail-in test.[/quote]
Guy…it’s just an abbreviation. I don’t get where that becomes insulting.
[quote]cougarenegade wrote:
No offense, but you’re insulting and and disrepecting Physical Therapists by referring to personal trainers as ‘PT’s’. The majority of PT’s have their master’s degrees and all licensed PT’s have to pass an extremely difficult test. Also, the current standard for PT students is 6 years of school to obtain their Ph.D in PT. This is in opposition to the majority (not all) of personal trainers who obtain their certification through a joke of a weekend or mail-in test.[/quote]
Sorry if the use of PT bothered you. I work in the personal training industry and so PT to me automatically means a personal trainer, so I didn’t think about it. I abbreviated Personal Trainer to PT in the title because I wasn’t sure it would fit if I spelled it out.
As a side note PT doesn’t just mean Physical Therapist, it also acceptable to call personal trainers PT’s. Just like calling someone a Doctor doesn’t mean they are an MD, could be a Ph.D or a DC, all with varying levels of education. So I apologize for the confusion but I certainly wouldn’t get insulted over it.