Re: Fitness Testing for Novices May Be Redundant

[Guest guest]

I think it was Mel who told me one day that the current fitness

testing trend seemed like testing people before they had anything to

be tested on. Paraphrased, his statement was 'imagine walking into

your first math class and being tested before they've taught you

anything.'

A lot of modern testing protocols simply give the trainer an instant

sense of power and quickly point to a client having something 'wrong'

with them that needs fixing. They are subtler means.

Unless seriously messed up, everyone at Bodytribe learns basic

squatting and deadlifting technique, even if it means a very limited

range of motion. From this lesson alone we can learn a great deal

about a person and their current level of ability, flexibility, spine

integrity, etc.

There are many movements that can double as great analysis tools,

without the client having to be aware that they are under such

analytical conditions. Instead they learn how to move, or are at

least empowered with tools to increase their abilities, without ever

being told they're broken in any way.

Once they start moving more, testing can be something looked forward

to. Just another challenge, like any good workout, that can

ultimately be a tool of empowerment, not a possible esteem buster.

Chip Conrad

Bodytribe Fitness

Touch your toes for me in Sacramento, CA

www.physicalsubculture.com

>

> <<<INTRODUCTORY NOTE

>

> For newcomers to this column, these Puzzles & Paradoxes (P & Ps) are

> Propositions, not facts or dogmatic proclamations. They are intended

> to stimulate interaction among users working in different fields, to

> re-examine traditional concepts, foster distance education, question

> our beliefs and suggest new lines of research or approaches to

> training. We look forward to responses from anyone who has views or

> relevant information on the topics.

>

> PP 37 Fitness Testing for novices may be redundant and sometimes

> harmful

>

> Newcomers to fitness training are usually subjected to batteries of

> tests by well-schooled doctors or fitness professionals in an effort

> to prescribe exercise more safely and effectively. However, some of

> these tests are stress tests which expose these novices prematurely

> to what for them is high intensity loading. Standard ECG tests are

> renowned for not giving accurate information about the individual's

> state of cardiac health; bodyfat measurements often serve more as a

> motivational goal than a scientific barometer of wellness; step tests

> can impose unnecessary stress on the untrained cardiorespiratory

> system and the jarring associated with them may damage the joints;

> blood pressure tests may reflect changes which have nothing to do

> with pathology; 'aerobic' fitness does not correlate with

> enhanced 'health'; and so forth.

>

> Is it not better simply to assume that the novice is extremely unfit

> and that any prior medical history offers a more sensible approach to

> assessing the newcomer to exercise? Why stress the client with tests

> which may tell you very little when you can simply presume that the

> client is very unfit at this initial stage? Are tests being

> administered by fitness professionals simply to appear more

> scientific to clients or do these tests play a vital role in exercise

> prescription for beginners? Is it not preferable to prescribe a very

> modest PRE-TESTING PHASE of adaptive exercise lasting about 3-6 weeks

> before any tests are administered? Discuss these points.>>>

>

> ===================

> Carruthers

> Wakefield, UK

>

[Guest guest]

Hi

" Redundant " isn't the word--unnecessary is more like it. Unless

someone has some type of fitness test as part of his/her job, sport,

or a recreational (Biggest Loser competition) setting, I don't see

much point in doing it at any stage of a person's exercise training.

As a practicing fitness professional, here are some of the principles

I've learned through experience and continued to apply:

1. Almost everyone who starts exercising knows what they want to see-

-and it's not about their bodyfat or measurements specifically, let

alone their sit-and-reach or step-test performance. It's about

fitting into that dress, pair of jeans, swimsuit (women), or

tightening up the belt another notch (men)--essentially " look better

naked " . That won't change no matter how far you can sit and reach.

2. It doesn't really matter how people perform compared to anyone

else unless they're in a sport. It matters more about getting better

than yourself, better than when you began and better than last time

(workout, week, month, year, etc). Establishing a lifelong habit of

exercise and creatively maintaining the most important elements of it

when barriers crop up is critical.

3. Most people don't need periodization. If a person is happy with

the results they're getting and have no injuries to require

adjustment of a routine, there is no reason they can't do the same

exercises--strength and cardio--for months and years on end.

4. Conversely, some " life athletes " that have a performance season--

perhaps construction workers or musicians (I've worked with both

types), might benefit from some form of periodization. However, it

doesn't have to be the kind of " rocket science " of macro, meso, and

microcycles.

5. Appropriate initial interviewing and observation of a novice

exerciser can provide a lot of information for a professional without

formal testing. Watch how a person rises from a chair: maybe he/she

needs body weight squats to start. What occupation does the person

have: gives some indication of an appropriate starting weight for

some exercises. For a mom with young children, how much do the kids

weigh: if she's picking them up, that gives you an idea of what she

can handle with other free weights (than don't squirm <g>).

6. Some people won't be motivated if they don't get sore: ask up

front: " Would it motivate you if you got sore in the next day or

two? Would it demotivate you if you DIDN'T get sore? " Make sure you

find out.

7. (For ) Sure BMI has its limitations, but if I need to use

it as a way to get a particular person to start/keep exercising

instead of remaining sedentary, I will.

I'm sure I'm forgetting some others, but that's food enough for

discussion for now.

Merrick, M.A.

PhD Student

ACSM HFI, NSCA-CPT/CSCS, NASM CPT

Bellevue, NE USA

>

> <<<INTRODUCTORY NOTE

>

> For newcomers to this column, these Puzzles & Paradoxes (P & Ps) are

> Propositions, not facts or dogmatic proclamations. They are

intended to stimulate interaction among users working in different

fields, to re-examine traditional concepts, foster distance

education, question our beliefs and suggest new lines of research or

approaches to training. We look forward to responses from anyone who

has views or relevant information on the topics.

>

> PP 37 Fitness Testing for novices may be redundant and sometimes

> harmful

>

> Newcomers to fitness training are usually subjected to batteries of

> tests by well-schooled doctors or fitness professionals in an

effort to prescribe exercise more safely and effectively. However,

some of these tests are stress tests which expose these novices

prematurely to what for them is high intensity loading. Standard ECG

tests are renowned for not giving accurate information about the

individual's state of cardiac health; bodyfat measurements often

serve more as a motivational goal than a scientific barometer of

wellness; step tests can impose unnecessary stress on the untrained

cardiorespiratory system and the jarring associated with them may

damage the joints; blood pressure tests may reflect changes which

have nothing to do with pathology; 'aerobic' fitness does not

correlate with enhanced 'health'; and so forth.

>

> Is it not better simply to assume that the novice is extremely

unfit and that any prior medical history offers a more sensible

approach to assessing the newcomer to exercise? Why stress the client

with tests which may tell you very little when you can simply presume

that the client is very unfit at this initial stage? Are tests being

> administered by fitness professionals simply to appear more

> scientific to clients or do these tests play a vital role in

exercise prescription for beginners? Is it not preferable to

prescribe a very modest PRE-TESTING PHASE of adaptive exercise

lasting about 3-6 weeks before any tests are administered? Discuss

these points.>>>

>

> ===================

> Carruthers

> Wakefield, UK

>

[Guest guest]

Good points, but I disagree with #3. Even if it is not " periodization "

there needs to be some variety. The body adapts and becomes more

efficient. I have observed that doing the same exercises the same way for

months or years on end leads to stagnation, and for some (like me) fat gain.

Best regards,

Brett

Draper, UT

>

> Hi

>

> " Redundant " isn't the word--unnecessary is more like it. Unless

> someone has some type of fitness test as part of his/her job, sport,

> or a recreational (Biggest Loser competition) setting, I don't see

> much point in doing it at any stage of a person's exercise training.

>

> As a practicing fitness professional, here are some of the principles

> I've learned through experience and continued to apply:

>

> 1. Almost everyone who starts exercising knows what they want to see-

> -and it's not about their bodyfat or measurements specifically, let

> alone their sit-and-reach or step-test performance. It's about

> fitting into that dress, pair of jeans, swimsuit (women), or

> tightening up the belt another notch (men)--essentially " look better

> naked " . That won't change no matter how far you can sit and reach.

>

> 2. It doesn't really matter how people perform compared to anyone

> else unless they're in a sport. It matters more about getting better

> than yourself, better than when you began and better than last time

> (workout, week, month, year, etc). Establishing a lifelong habit of

> exercise and creatively maintaining the most important elements of it

> when barriers crop up is critical.

>

> 3. Most people don't need periodization. If a person is happy with

> the results they're getting and have no injuries to require

> adjustment of a routine, there is no reason they can't do the same

> exercises--strength and cardio--for months and years on end.

>

> 4. Conversely, some " life athletes " that have a performance season--

> perhaps construction workers or musicians (I've worked with both

> types), might benefit from some form of periodization. However, it

> doesn't have to be the kind of " rocket science " of macro, meso, and

> microcycles.

>

> 5. Appropriate initial interviewing and observation of a novice

> exerciser can provide a lot of information for a professional without

> formal testing. Watch how a person rises from a chair: maybe he/she

> needs body weight squats to start. What occupation does the person

> have: gives some indication of an appropriate starting weight for

> some exercises. For a mom with young children, how much do the kids

> weigh: if she's picking them up, that gives you an idea of what she

> can handle with other free weights (than don't squirm <g>).

>

> 6. Some people won't be motivated if they don't get sore: ask up

> front: " Would it motivate you if you got sore in the next day or

> two? Would it demotivate you if you DIDN'T get sore? " Make sure you

> find out.

>

> 7. (For ) Sure BMI has its limitations, but if I need to use

> it as a way to get a particular person to start/keep exercising

> instead of remaining sedentary, I will.

>

> I'm sure I'm forgetting some others, but that's food enough for

> discussion for now.

>

> Merrick, M.A.

> PhD Student

> ACSM HFI, NSCA-CPT/CSCS, NASM CPT

> Bellevue, NE USA

>

>

> >

> > <<<INTRODUCTORY NOTE

> >

> > For newcomers to this column, these Puzzles & Paradoxes (P & Ps) are

> > Propositions, not facts or dogmatic proclamations. They are

> intended to stimulate interaction among users working in different

> fields, to re-examine traditional concepts, foster distance

> education, question our beliefs and suggest new lines of research or

> approaches to training. We look forward to responses from anyone who

> has views or relevant information on the topics.

> >

> > PP 37 Fitness Testing for novices may be redundant and sometimes

> > harmful

> >

> > Newcomers to fitness training are usually subjected to batteries of

> > tests by well-schooled doctors or fitness professionals in an

> effort to prescribe exercise more safely and effectively. However,

> some of these tests are stress tests which expose these novices

> prematurely to what for them is high intensity loading. Standard ECG

> tests are renowned for not giving accurate information about the

> individual's state of cardiac health; bodyfat measurements often

> serve more as a motivational goal than a scientific barometer of

> wellness; step tests can impose unnecessary stress on the untrained

> cardiorespiratory system and the jarring associated with them may

> damage the joints; blood pressure tests may reflect changes which

> have nothing to do with pathology; 'aerobic' fitness does not

> correlate with enhanced 'health'; and so forth.

> >

> > Is it not better simply to assume that the novice is extremely

> unfit and that any prior medical history offers a more sensible

> approach to assessing the newcomer to exercise? Why stress the client

> with tests which may tell you very little when you can simply presume

> that the client is very unfit at this initial stage? Are tests being

> > administered by fitness professionals simply to appear more

> > scientific to clients or do these tests play a vital role in

> exercise prescription for beginners? Is it not preferable to

> prescribe a very modest PRE-TESTING PHASE of adaptive exercise

> lasting about 3-6 weeks before any tests are administered? Discuss

> these points.>>>

> >

[Guest guest]

>

> Hi

>

> " Redundant " isn't the word--unnecessary is more like it. Unless

> someone has some type of fitness test as part of his/her job, sport,

> or a recreational (Biggest Loser competition) setting, I don't see

> much point in doing it at any stage of a person's exercise training.

>

> As a practicing fitness professional, here are some of the principles

> I've learned through experience and continued to apply:

>

[...]

Great advice here. I'd add:

1. For people starting out, connect the training to real life. Don't

bother with exercises that seem to them like " weird stuff my trainer

makes me do but have no basis in reality " . Don't make them stand on a

ball, suck in their abs and stand on one leg, or anything else. Make

them " pick up stuff from the floor " and " put it on a high shelf " .

Explain to them exactly how this relates in a concrete way to their

daily tasks such as carrying groceries (farmer's walks), picking up a

laundry basket (deadlift), taking a load out of the car trunk

(stiff-legged deadlift) or reaching up to a cupboard (overhead press).

Make it real; make it functional; make it applicable and communicate

it effectively.

2. If you work with average people, the biggest victory you can

accomplish as a trainer (in my opinion) is not related to performance

or body recomposition: it is getting people to stick to a regular

exercise program and practice good nutrition in the long term. Nothing

else is as important as this.

3. Let people explain to you in their own words what they want and

feel. This will help you understand their headspace and experiences,

and it will help them practice articulating and verbalizing living in

their bodies.

3. b. Don't ask " Do you eat well? " . They will say yes or not really

and you're no more informed. Ask " Tell me about an average day for

you; take me through from beginning to end. What do you do? What do

you eat? " Make specific, targeted interventions ( " I would like you to

eat a piece of fruit along with your regular breakfast every day " )

rather than giving broad injunctions ( " Eat more protein " ).

4. Make them the authority over their bodies and give them some of the

responsibility. You're the expert and the advisor. They're the ones

that get up every morning and decide whether to show up to see you.

Make them accountable to you but also make them accountable to

themselves.

5. Praise is essential but it has to be meaningful. Self esteem comes

from skill mastery and observable results, not empty affirmations.

6. A trainer is as much a shrink, informed observer of human nature,

facilitator of coping mechanisms, and confessor as an expert on

physical activity. A sit-and-reach test means absolutely nothing. Your

real issue to deal with is very likely emotional eating, life stress,

some childhood trauma, and/or habitually inhibited movement.

For this population, fitness testing in the abstract standardized

sense is about as useful as boobs on a bull, as my rural relatives

would say.

Mildly cynical in Toronto ON,

Krista -Dixon

kristascottdixon@...

[Guest guest]

I thought of one more thing to add:

Reward the process over the product as often as possible. Fitness

testing does not measure hard work, tenacity, or stick-to-it-ness.

Demonstrate to the trainee the relationship between input and outcome.

This means rewarding things like adherence to an exercise regime,

trying hard, showing up even on a bad day, etc. A person may or may

not accomplish a particular bodyfat level or a set number of inches on

their vertical. But for an average person (i.e. not an elite athlete

where outcome is indeed more important), process is soooo much more

important to reinforce. Focusing only on product leads almost

inevitably to disappointment because one cannot always succeed.

Research also suggests that people who focus on process do better

overall because they are not thrown off by failure or obstacles. They

are also able to perceive a relationship between input and output, and

do not falsely regard output as something resulting from only from

talent or genius or genetics or accident (although of course all those

things may be relevant).

Taking my screwups in stride in Toronto ON,

Krista -Dixon

kristascottdixon@...

[Guest guest]

Novices often have NO IDEA what they want. Their goals are often

based on a concept called " I'll know when I get there " and they

treat a gym like most folks treat church, which means they are under

the assumption that just being their is supposed to be good for them.

A belt notch or dress size is simply a symptom of a deeper goal, and

we need to mine their motivations a little to see what they really

want. If the words 'tone' or 'strong' are used, we have to have

them define what those mean, since we can never achieve what isn't

defined.

Aesthetic goals aren't always of the 'fitness' variety and sometimes

we, as fitness professionals, have to expand a client's thought

process to see all the possibilities. A client might have an idea

of what they want to see, but it is usually a blurry archetype

formed through media hyperbole. Exact goals are rare.

Chip COnrad

Bodytribe Fitness

Sacramento, CA

www.physicalsubculture.com

>

> Hi

>

> " Redundant " isn't the word--unnecessary is more like it. Unless

> someone has some type of fitness test as part of his/her job,

sport,

> or a recreational (Biggest Loser competition) setting, I don't see

> much point in doing it at any stage of a person's exercise

training.

>

> As a practicing fitness professional, here are some of the

principles

> I've learned through experience and continued to apply:

>

> 1. Almost everyone who starts exercising knows what they want to

see-

> -and it's not about their bodyfat or measurements specifically, let

> alone their sit-and-reach or step-test performance. It's about

> fitting into that dress, pair of jeans, swimsuit (women), or

> tightening up the belt another notch (men)--essentially " look

better

> naked " . That won't change no matter how far you can sit and reach.

>

> 2. It doesn't really matter how people perform compared to anyone

> else unless they're in a sport. It matters more about getting

better

> than yourself, better than when you began and better than last time

> (workout, week, month, year, etc). Establishing a lifelong habit

of

> exercise and creatively maintaining the most important elements of

it

> when barriers crop up is critical.

>

> 3. Most people don't need periodization. If a person is happy

with

> the results they're getting and have no injuries to require

> adjustment of a routine, there is no reason they can't do the same

> exercises--strength and cardio--for months and years on end.

>

> 4. Conversely, some " life athletes " that have a performance

season--

> perhaps construction workers or musicians (I've worked with both

> types), might benefit from some form of periodization. However, it

> doesn't have to be the kind of " rocket science " of macro, meso, and

> microcycles.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Brett,

Thanks for your reply!

Remember the qualifier I gave in #3-- " If a person is happy with

the results they're (sic) getting and have no injuries to require

adjustment of a routine " .

If you are gaining fat and aren't happy with it, then that's a reason

to change the routine. Yes, the body adapts and becomes more

efficient--so what? If the person's physical response is where

he/she wants it, then there is no reason to change things.

" Stagnation " in any other sense only implies boredom leading to

dropping out. If a person needs variety to stimulate mental

commmittment to keep exercising regularly, then by all means, change

things up.

But don't confuse any mental need for variety with a physiological

need. Again, if person is happy with results and has no other

physiological considerations, he/she doesn't need to change the

routine for change's sake.

Merrick, M.A.

PhD Student

ACSM HFI, NSCA-CPT/CSCS, NASM CPT

Bellevue, NE USA

Good points, but I disagree with #3. Even if it is

not " periodization " there needs to be some variety. The body adapts

and becomes more efficient. I have observed that doing the same

exercises the same way for months or years on end leads to

stagnation, and for some (like me) fat gain.

Best regards,

Brett

Draper, UT

[Guest guest]

Hi Chip,

Thanks for replying!

You're correct about the dress size or belt size relating to a

deeper " why " . It's almost always an aesthetic goal: look better,

feel better (than I do right now).

Actually, novices DO know what they want; they've just never been

asked to state it out loud and define it specifically. When a person

says " tone " , " get in shape " , or " get fit " , I have to dig deeper and

ask what that all means to them specifically. Get them to define it

for me so we are both talking about the same thing.

Essentially, you have to ask them--straight out--what do they want to

see that will show them they're making progress. If " getting

stronger " is a goal (sometimes is), then at least starting them

somewhere and writing it down establishes the starting point. Then

progress from there.

Good comments!

Merrick, M.A.

PhD Student

ACSM HFI, NSCA-CPT/CSCS, NASM CPT

Bellevue, NE USA

Novices often have NO IDEA what they want. Their goals are often

based on a concept called " I'll know when I get there " and they

treat a gym like most folks treat church, which means they are under

the assumption that just being their is supposed to be good for them.

A belt notch or dress size is simply a symptom of a deeper goal, and

we need to mine their motivations a little to see what they really

want. If the words 'tone' or 'strong' are used, we have to have

them define what those mean, since we can never achieve what isn't

defined.

Aesthetic goals aren't always of the 'fitness' variety and sometimes

we, as fitness professionals, have to expand a client's thought

process to see all the possibilities. A client might have an idea

of what they want to see, but it is usually a blurry archetype

formed through media hyperbole. Exact goals are rare.

Chip COnrad

Bodytribe Fitness

Sacramento, CA

www.physicalsubculture.com

[Guest guest]

Depends on the 'results' that client is happy with. They might not

know or have much opinion yet about certain aspects of their

fitness, be it spinal health to blood pressure to maximum force

development, yet we should be incorporating change into their

programs (a 'routine' is something that meets base needs without

promoting progress or inspiration)just to overcome the basic GAS

concept. Saying 'so what' to adaptation is akin to promoting

mediocrity.

Perhaps we should, as fitness professionals and ambassadors of

movement and physical culture, be promoting progress. A person

should only strive for maintenance if they're already perfect in

every way.

So what is meant by 'results?' A lifetime of good habits and

appreciation for the possibilities of the body? Or what the mirror

says? Change isn't just for boredom of the mind. It is also for

boredom of the body.

We educators, not service industry drones. We should promote the

possibilities of movement and empowerment. Change is a good tool

for that.

Chip Conrad

Bodytribe Fitness

Sacramento, CA

www.physicalsubculture.com

>

> Hi Brett,

>

> Thanks for your reply!

>

> Remember the qualifier I gave in #3-- " If a person is happy with

> the results they're (sic) getting and have no injuries to require

> adjustment of a routine " .

>

> If you are gaining fat and aren't happy with it, then that's a

reason

> to change the routine. Yes, the body adapts and becomes more

> efficient--so what? If the person's physical response is where

> he/she wants it, then there is no reason to change things.

>

> " Stagnation " in any other sense only implies boredom leading to

> dropping out. If a person needs variety to stimulate mental

> commmittment to keep exercising regularly, then by all means,

change

> things up.

>

> But don't confuse any mental need for variety with a physiological

> need. Again, if person is happy with results and has no other

> physiological considerations, he/she doesn't need to change the

> routine for change's sake.

>

> Merrick, M.A.

> PhD Student

> ACSM HFI, NSCA-CPT/CSCS, NASM CPT

> Bellevue, NE USA

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Chip,

Good dialog!

One thing I've learned through my experience is to be centered on the

clients' goals, not any that I might have. Learn more about what

drives those goals and keep appealing to those motivations. We must

help them work to create their own vision, not substitute my vision.

Let me share one experience I had that shaped my thoughts on this.

While training a client in the gym one day, we approached the hip

abduction/adduction machine with a younger lady sitting there

flapping away doing 50 or more reps. I told the woman that she was

doing well and the weight was way too easy, so it might be time to

increase the resistance. The woman replied " oh no, lots of reps and

light weights, that's the way, that's what works " (words to that

effect). My client and I silently exchanged looks and shook our

heads inwardly about how uninformed the woman was. However, later I

thought that if she was happy with the results she was getting from

doing the exercise like that, it was arrogant of me to question her

goals. The question to have asked then (if I had the time to do so)

was to ask what her goals were and how she came adopt the program she

did to get there. Then create the teachable moment of how she might

get even better results.

Certainly educate them, understand them, and reward them for

progress. For a great majority of them, real progress becomes

consistent habit of exercise, even when the physical part isn't

happening as fast as they would like it to.

" Maintenance " is not " mediocrity " , nor " being perfect in every way " .

Why do people lose weight and then regain it? Because we haven't

taught them how to maintain their results and we haven't created the

mental state for maintenance. The mental committment must precede

and continue to accompany the physical. The researchers I've spoken

to at national conferences have confirmed this observation--teaching

maintenance skills is where most interventions stop short.

I agree that people can always improve something--but they can't

improve everything.

I also agree we're not just service-industry drones. But we must

help people inspire themselves to find their own inner motivations to

achieve their own goals--not our goals.

Thanks for the discussion!

Merrick, M.A.

PhD Student

ACSM HFI, NSCA-CPT/CSCS, NASM CPT

Bellevue, NE USA

> >

> > Hi Brett,

> >

> > Thanks for your reply!

> >

> > Remember the qualifier I gave in #3-- " If a person is happy with

> > the results they're (sic) getting and have no injuries to require

> > adjustment of a routine " .

> >

> > If you are gaining fat and aren't happy with it, then that's a

> reason to change the routine. Yes, the body adapts and becomes

more efficient--so what? If the person's physical response is where

> > he/she wants it, then there is no reason to change things.

> >

> > " Stagnation " in any other sense only implies boredom leading to

> > dropping out. If a person needs variety to stimulate mental

> > commmittment to keep exercising regularly, then by all means,

> change things up.

> >

> > But don't confuse any mental need for variety with a

physiological need. Again, if person is happy with results and has

no other physiological considerations, he/she doesn't need to change

the routine for change's sake.

> >

> > Merrick, M.A.

> > PhD Student

> > ACSM HFI, NSCA-CPT/CSCS, NASM CPT

> > Bellevue, NE USA

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/7/2007 9:10:59 A.M. Central Standard Time,

Sam68123@... writes:

6. Some people won't be motivated if they don't get sore: ask up

front: " Would it motivate you if you got sore in the next day or

two? Would it demotivate you if you DIDN'T get sore? " Make sure you

find out.

*****

IMHO: Pain = less gain. I have never seen the promise of pain used to

successfully motivate any but the mentally disturbed and/or exercise addicted.

" Pain is weakness leaving the body " should be changed to " Pain is a sign

that something has gone awry. "

The most effective training I have done for myself and for many clients

results in very little or no soreness or tightness on succeeding days. Hence,

they get results without feeling " punished " and unable to keep up with the rest

of their life. The best trainers I know have a similar approach, and are very

successful.

kson, CMT, CST

Minneapolis, MN USA

_www.ClubbellTrainer.com_ (http://www.clubbelltrainer.com/)

" Better Living Through Movement. "

" Be good to yourself. If you don't take care of your body, where will you

live? "

- Kobi Yamada

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/7/2007 12:30:48 P.M. Central Standard Time,

bodytribefitness@... writes:

<<<Novices often have NO IDEA what they want. Their goals are often

based on a concept called " I'll know when I get there " and they

treat a gym like most folks treat church, which means they are under

the assumption that just being their is supposed to be good for them.

A belt notch or dress size is simply a symptom of a deeper goal, and

we need to mine their motivations a little to see what they really

want. If the words 'tone' or 'strong' are used, we have to have

them define what those mean, since we can never achieve what isn't

defined.

Aesthetic goals aren't always of the 'fitness' variety and sometimes

we, as fitness professionals, have to expand a client's thought

process to see all the possibilities. A client might have an idea

of what they want to see, but it is usually a blurry archetype

formed through media hyperbole. Exact goals are rare.>>>

****

Chip Conrad

Nice comments. Also want to point out that the client's health should come

first. Many forms of exercise and various types of goals put health very far

down the list of priorities. Aesthetic excellence often comes at the price of

health and long-term functional fitness. Educating the client should help them

understand the difference between having " a certain look " and " being

healthy " , as well as how both might be achieved simultaneously.

ly, when I focus on improving my client's health and ability to perform

in ways that apply directly to their needs/goals/daily life, things like

weight loss, definition, strength, endurance, speed, agility, balance,

coordination, etc. just fall into place... what I call " predictable side

effects " of

increasing health.

kson, CMT, CST

Minneapolis, MN USA

_www.ClubbellTrainer.com_ (http://www.clubbelltrainer.com/)

" Better Living Through Movement. "

" Be good to yourself. If you don't take care of your body, where will you

live? "

- Kobi Yamada

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/9/2007 5:29:59 A.M. Central Standard Time,

hannu.leinonen@... writes:

<<<I like 's logic, but just for sake of asking:

Is there any reason to take up a routine? Why not just do what you feel like

doing?

....If you are happy with the results and have no injuries...?>>>

***

Sure, you can just " do whatever " and have fun, but you'll waste a TON of

training time unless " having fun " is the primary goal for your workouts. If you

want to develop specific skills/attributes/abilities, then a plan is

necessary.

kson, CMT, CST

Minneapolis, MN USA

_www.ClubbellTrainer.com_ (http://www.clubbelltrainer.com/)

" Better Living Through Movement. "

" Be good to yourself. If you don't take care of your body, where will you

live? "

- Kobi Yamada

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Great dialog!

Definitely I tell people that it is NOT my mission to make them

sore. However, here is the history behind finding out the answer to

the question:

We started off with 3-4 exercises (1 set, 8-12 reps, within ACSM

guidelines), assessed how it was--if you watch them perform, you can

see whether it was easy or not. We recorded the weights/reps and I

suggested an appropriate increase in load for the person's next

workout performed on his/her own. Next session (week), the person

hadn't come back in the intervening time and done ANYTHING I had said

to do. I asked " why " : answer " well, I didn't feel like I had done

anything. " So I asked " did I have to get you sore in order to

motivate you? " and the person kind of searched around their mind

before weakly answering " yeah, I guess so. "

The moral of the story is this:

1) Find out what they might expect to feel, educate them on what

they might ACTUALLY feel, and give them a strategy to deal with what

they DO feel.

2) Your statement " Pain is a sign that something has gone awry " is

not ALWAYS true. I just reported in class on research that focuses

on aggressive exercise for persons with chronic low back pain--check

it out (citation: Cohen, I., & Rainville, J. (2002). Aggressive

Exercise as Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain. Sports Medicine: 32

(1), 75-82).

To also speak about your other post's comments:

You said: " Is there any reason to take up a routine? Why not just do

what you feel like doing? " and " Sure, you can just 'do whatever' and

have fun, but you'll waste a TON of training time unless " having fun "

is the primary goal for your workouts. If you want to develop

specific skills/attributes/abilities, then a plan is necessary. "

You're right--IF the client has those goals.

The reason to take up a routine is fundamentally for health--Surgeon

General and ACSM--accumulate 30 minutes of moderate to vigorous

physical activity on most if not all days of the week (150 to 210

minutes per week). The FITT principle is should really be the TFTI

principle:

Type: what can you do (physically), what do you want to do, what are

you willing to do, and what do you have access to do (I like

snowshoeing, no snow now).

Frequency: must establish exercise as a habit in your life.

Time (duration) vs Intensity are on a continuum: if a person can't,

shouldn't, or won't do higher intensity (which we know is more

efficient), then exercise needs longer time or duration.

If you have specific goals as you've stated and still have only those

150 to 210 minutes a week, then your training--best mapped out with a

fitness or sports professional--needs to be planned to deliver the

best results within those time constraints.

Thanks again for engaging!

Merrick, M.A.

ACSM H/FI, NSCA CPT/CSCS, NASM CPT

Bellevue, NE

>

> In a message dated 3/7/2007 9:10:59 A.M. Central Standard Time,

> Sam68123@... writes:

>

> 6. Some people won't be motivated if they don't get sore: ask up

> front: " Would it motivate you if you got sore in the next day or

> two? Would it demotivate you if you DIDN'T get sore? " Make sure

you find out.

>

> *****

> IMHO: Pain = less gain. I have never seen the promise of pain used

to successfully motivate any but the mentally disturbed and/or

exercise addicted.

>

> " Pain is weakness leaving the body " should be changed to " Pain is

a sign that something has gone awry. "

>

> The most effective training I have done for myself and for many

clients results in very little or no soreness or tightness on

succeeding days. Hence, they get results without feeling " punished "

and unable to keep up with the rest of their life. The best trainers

I know have a similar approach, and are very successful.

>

> kson, CMT, CST

> Minneapolis, MN USA

> _www.ClubbellTrainer.com_ (http://www.clubbelltrainer.com/)