This is a serious question, not making fun of PT’s here. I was at the gym today and I see one of the male PT’s who is maybe 100 pounds showing a new guy how to squat. In the smith machine. To his credit though I did see them move over to the squat rack and YES, wait for it, actually use it for squats. i have to take points off because they used the pussy pad with like 50 pounds on the bar though.
But I see ass-hat trainers and I think “If that’s all it takes I could be a PT.” What’s involved in the certification? Cost?
For me about $500 and an easy ass 150 question multiple choice test. NCSF cerified
when’s the last time McDonald’s hired a gourmet chef?
Man, I took the ACE a couple of months ago with almost no studying. It was 150 questions plus a two simulated scenarios. I just picked the answer that sounded the most bone-headed and I passed. I’m only half joking.
PT’s are skinny because most of their clients are middle age women who are interested in losing weight and nothing else. Don’t blame the service providers, blame the market.
Also, it doesn’t make you “hardcore” to have a 7’ long metal bar digging into your cervical spine as you squat. Skinny people need the pad because they lack the natural padding in that area. And don’t tell me to “create a shelf” using my upper rhombs and rear delts. That shit simply doesn’t work and is a great way to get an RC strain.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
PT’s are skinny because most of their clients are middle age women who are interested in losing weight and nothing else. Don’t blame the service providers, blame the market.
Also, it doesn’t make you “hardcore” to have a 7’ long metal bar digging into your cervical spine as you squat. Skinny people need the pad because they lack the natural padding in that area. And don’t tell me to “create a shelf” using my upper rhombs and rear delts. That shit simply doesn’t work and is a great way to get an RC strain. [/quote]
Funny, my wife has squatted 286 at a weight of 112. The bar didn’t dig into her spine despite her not having huge amounts of “padding”.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
PT’s are skinny because most of their clients are middle age women who are interested in losing weight and nothing else. Don’t blame the service providers, blame the market.
Also, it doesn’t make you “hardcore” to have a 7’ long metal bar digging into your cervical spine as you squat. Skinny people need the pad because they lack the natural padding in that area. And don’t tell me to “create a shelf” using my upper rhombs and rear delts. That shit simply doesn’t work and is a great way to get an RC strain. [/quote]
Funny, my wife has squatted 286 at a weight of 112. The bar didn’t dig into her spine despite her not having huge amounts of “padding”.[/quote]
I was thinking the same thing, I know a quite a few lighter weight women who have no trouble “making a shelf” for the bar. BTW, my max is 270 @ 132 and have yet to have any issues, in fact since I learned how to squat low bar I’ve gotten a whole lot stronger.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
PT’s are skinny because most of their clients are middle age women who are interested in losing weight and nothing else. Don’t blame the service providers, blame the market.
Also, it doesn’t make you “hardcore” to have a 7’ long metal bar digging into your cervical spine as you squat. Skinny people need the pad because they lack the natural padding in that area. And don’t tell me to “create a shelf” using my upper rhombs and rear delts. That shit simply doesn’t work and is a great way to get an RC strain. [/quote]
Funny, my wife has squatted 286 at a weight of 112. The bar didn’t dig into her spine despite her not having huge amounts of “padding”.[/quote]
So your wife, unlike the vast majority of women, doesn’t have more than 15% BF?
If the bar is digging into your cervical spine, than you have it in the wrong spot plain and simple. I have squatted over 400 with no pad. In fact I prefer to not use the pad because I feel that the pad makes it easier to fuck up and put the bar in the wrong spot. With a raw bar, I can feel it’s in the right spot. (Thats what she said)
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
PT’s are skinny because most of their clients are middle age women who are interested in losing weight and nothing else. Don’t blame the service providers, blame the market.
Also, it doesn’t make you “hardcore” to have a 7’ long metal bar digging into your cervical spine as you squat. Skinny people need the pad because they lack the natural padding in that area. And don’t tell me to “create a shelf” using my upper rhombs and rear delts. That shit simply doesn’t work and is a great way to get an RC strain. [/quote]
Funny, my wife has squatted 286 at a weight of 112. The bar didn’t dig into her spine despite her not having huge amounts of “padding”.[/quote]
So your wife, unlike the vast majority of women, doesn’t have more than 15% BF?[/quote]
Not when she weighs 112.
[quote]Rhino Jockey wrote:
If the bar is digging into your cervical spine, than you have it in the wrong spot plain and simple. I have squatted over 400 with no pad. In fact I prefer to not use the pad because I feel that the pad makes it easier to fuck up and put the bar in the wrong spot. With a raw bar, I can feel it’s in the right spot. (Thats what she said)[/quote]
Exactly right. There is no reason why anyone should use the pad. People have put far more than 400 (not that this is bad at all) on their backs and been fine. If the bar is hurting your back, you aren’t doing it correctly.
[quote]dianab wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
PT’s are skinny because most of their clients are middle age women who are interested in losing weight and nothing else. Don’t blame the service providers, blame the market.
Also, it doesn’t make you “hardcore” to have a 7’ long metal bar digging into your cervical spine as you squat. Skinny people need the pad because they lack the natural padding in that area. And don’t tell me to “create a shelf” using my upper rhombs and rear delts. That shit simply doesn’t work and is a great way to get an RC strain. [/quote]
Funny, my wife has squatted 286 at a weight of 112. The bar didn’t dig into her spine despite her not having huge amounts of “padding”.[/quote]
I was thinking the same thing, I know a quite a few lighter weight women who have no trouble “making a shelf” for the bar. BTW, my max is 270 @ 132 and have yet to have any issues, in fact since I learned how to squat low bar I’ve gotten a whole lot stronger.[/quote]
Its funny how drastically different some people’s attitudes are. You choose to not be a pussy and go for it… and the result is a very impressive squat! Other people… not so much.
P.S. are you going to be lifting at nationals this year? If so, Sensgirl and I will see you there.
I believe you also need basic CPR training, at least in Canada you do.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]dianab wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
PT’s are skinny because most of their clients are middle age women who are interested in losing weight and nothing else. Don’t blame the service providers, blame the market.
Also, it doesn’t make you “hardcore” to have a 7’ long metal bar digging into your cervical spine as you squat. Skinny people need the pad because they lack the natural padding in that area. And don’t tell me to “create a shelf” using my upper rhombs and rear delts. That shit simply doesn’t work and is a great way to get an RC strain. [/quote]
Funny, my wife has squatted 286 at a weight of 112. The bar didn’t dig into her spine despite her not having huge amounts of “padding”.[/quote]
I was thinking the same thing, I know a quite a few lighter weight women who have no trouble “making a shelf” for the bar. BTW, my max is 270 @ 132 and have yet to have any issues, in fact since I learned how to squat low bar I’ve gotten a whole lot stronger.[/quote]
Its funny how drastically different some people’s attitudes are. You choose to not be a pussy and go for it… and the result is a very impressive squat! Other people… not so much.
P.S. are you going to be lifting at nationals this year? If so, Sensgirl and I will see you there.[/quote]
Yep I’ll be there! Still looking for a handler though, if you guys know anyone who will be there for the Thursday morning session and who wouldn’t mind helping out, have them shoot me or Julie a line.
I also find it funny how someone would question Sensgirl BF, when at 112 and lifting what she does it’s obvious she has muscle, not fat.
[quote]dianab wrote:
Yep I’ll be there! Still looking for a handler though, if you guys know anyone who will be there for the Thursday morning session and who wouldn’t mind helping out, have them shoot me or Julie a line.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, I’ll be helping Sensgirl at the same time, however I’m sure there will be people around who can help out if needed.
[quote]
I also find it funny how someone would question Sensgirl BF, when at 112 and lifting what she does it’s obvious she has muscle, not fat.[/quote]
Especially since most women don’t store their bodyfat in their upper back. But logic has never stopped Nominal Prospect before.
I work as a personal trainer at my school’s gym. We are not required to be certified but just about everything I know I learned from people who were qualified, certified CSCS, power lifting experience etc. I’m hoping to get certified through either NSCA or ACSM in the future.
Technical knowledge is certainly an important part of the job. Most of my clients are fairly out of shape and lack exercise or free weight experience.
It’s a complicated job. I generally tell people that it’s 10% knowledge and 90% psychology. Plenty of us here know how to squat/bench, etc with good form. To teach these principles and create an environment in which a client feels challenged but also able to succeed takes more than understanding muscle anatomy.
It’s also my job to teach people to work hard, to encourage them, and to try and maintain a balance between working on what’s difficult, and doing things that are also fun/functional to keep the client interested, especially in the beginning. In my opinion, a good trainer is able to assess their client and meet them where they are.
So while I make ALL of my clients squat, that doesn’t mean I put a bar on their back on the first day or even in the first month. Some people start with bodyweight squats and pushups on their knees but with proper progression, hopefully over time they improve.
I love my work but it’s worth understanding that training is less about bestowing your advanced knowledge upon people but rather a relationship. Granted if you’re training athletes or people who have weight training experience then the process may be different but the majority of my clients are out of shape girls, in their early twenties, who just want to lose some fat, build some muscle and feel better.
[quote]Wapptor wrote:
I love my work but it’s worth understanding that training is less about bestowing your advanced knowledge upon people but rather a relationship. Granted if you’re training athletes or people who have weight training experience then the process may be different but the majority of my clients are out of shape girls, in their early twenties, who just want to lose some fat, build some muscle and feel better. [/quote]
It’s a great feeling as they see themselves start to get hotter too, and you know you’ve won another convert to being actually attractive instead of supermodel skinny. Hats off to you, sir. Keep up the good work.
My school’s gym has a co-op program with PT students, where they match up the soon-to-be trainers with students. The PT students get teaching experience and the students get free training.
Once I was doing post-workout stretches and this PT student was doing her scenario exam with her instructor. The entire exam consisted of doing exercises on machines and bosu balls. They didn’t even bother doing the big three.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
Not when she weighs 112.[/quote]
So she’s under 15%? Then she should have a fully visible six pack. Why don’t you post a pic to prove it? Extraordinary claims…
I’m not sure whether you know this, but the VAST majority of females are well over 20% BF. Even females who train regularly are often no lower than 18%.
You see those “powerful images” provided as masturbatory aids on this site?
Probably 80% of the women in them are over 15% BF. And those are professional fitness models and athletes.
Highly unlikely that your wife is actually below 15%. I don’t think you realize what below 15% would look like on a female. Is she waif thin?
[quote]OBoile wrote:
Especially since most women don’t store their bodyfat in their upper back. But logic has never stopped Nominal Prospect before.[/quote]
A) Please provide an example of when I posted something illogical. Go ahead, I dare ya.
B) Just because women don’t store the majority of their bodyfat in their upper backs doesn’t mean they have no body fat there. Women hold more body fat all around than men do.
[quote]CapitaineEvident wrote:
My school’s gym has a co-op program with PT students, where they match up the soon-to-be trainers with students. The PT students get teaching experience and the students get free training.
Once I was doing post-workout stretches and this PT student was doing her scenario exam with her instructor. The entire exam consisted of doing exercises on machines and bosu balls. They didn’t even bother doing the big three.[/quote]
Haha sounds about right. A lot of the kids I work with don’t know shit and take people through terrible/useless programs. I see this goofy bosu ball stuff all the time. I should definitely qualify that while -I- tend to make people do some variation of the big three (or at least everyone gets a quad dominant, hip dominant, push, pull, and core) some of the other trainees are less fortunate and get stuck doing wrist curls and bosu ball half squat jumping twisting band resisted atrocity…