Geschatte leestijd: 3 minuten
In the magazine Body Life, John van Heel states that only 20% of people in a fitness gym train optimally. I recognize the problem, but I have some concerns about the proposed solution of “5 golden rules” for training.
“Optimal training”
We often hear that members are not achieving their goals. Now, of course, there are various factors at play; are they getting enough exercise outside the gym, what about their nutrition, is the frequency of training optimal? But we also need to look at the training itself to find the cause of insufficient results. Are members training optimally effectively? In our training sessions, we regularly ask groups what percentage of fitness members actually train optimally in the gym. The answer is distressing, averaging below 20%. Are we really paying enough attention to whether people are training optimally effectively?
John van Heel, Body Life magazine [1]
I would actually think that 0% train ‘optimally effectively’. I assume this considering it’s clear what specific goal we’re talking about and what training would be ‘optimal’ to achieve it. There is simply no one optimal training that fits every conceivable goal of people who visit a gym.
More importantly, every new piece of knowledge researchers gain raises new questions. We simply don’t know enough yet to determine what “optimal effective training” is (for specific goals of specific people under specific circumstances). Let’s not set too high expectations.
Golden rules and fit facts
John works for the EFAA and essentially sells the NASM’s PT courses in his piece, the National Academy of Sports Medicine. That’s fine, of course. I just think that the biggest added value of the Personal Trainer is the personalized advice. Personal advice cannot be summarized in general rules.
A Personal Trainer will first determine who his client is, what their particular characteristics are, and what the goal is. For example, the required amount of rest may vary from person to person and depend on training intensity and volume.
The NASM trainers should be familiar with the ‘five golden rules’ and communicate them uniformly to their clients. John mentions the required time for rest/recovery and the eccentric phase as examples of two golden rules.
In my opinion, the added value of a personal trainer is precisely that they don’t have to rely on general rules. Rules that may not apply to his/her client. If, for example, a boxer is doing strength training to punch harder and faster, they are only interested in the concentric phase and explosive training. I am a big fan of emphasizing the eccentric phase for more muscle mass. However, according to research, it doesn’t seem to offer any added value for improving the concentric phase.
Lack of knowledge
Don’t get me wrong: Many people in the average gym would know a lot more with five rules than they do now. This is mainly due to the chain formation in the fitness industry and the tendency to pay as little as possible for access to a gym. Once, gyms used to have one or more qualified fitness instructors or trainers on hand. It used to be normal to receive a personal plan and explanations of the exercises upon registration. Even if you weren’t directly supervised, you could count on being pointed out if you were doing an exercise completely wrong and/or unsafely.
Now the gym is often nothing more than a shared space with equipment. You don’t pay for guidance so you don’t get it. In some large chains, staff are even prohibited from giving advice to members.
You can find the golden rules John mentions on this blog as well. But not as a few simple golden rules, but as complete articles with references to research. For example, the article about the eccentric phase. And of course, we’re not the only fitness blog. The information is often there. People usually don’t bother to take in this information.
So, I share the opinion that many people in the gym don’t train ‘optimally effectively’. But that’s because they choose not to pay for guidance themselves. This won’t change by ‘improving’ the nonexistent guidance content. Firstly, you do this by explaining the importance of that guidance to more people.
Conclusion
Yes, a few simple rules may be easier to digest than a detailed article explaining scientific research. People are simply easier to catch with a simple message. With such a simple message, there’s nothing wrong if there is no other knowledge. As mentioned: Something is better than nothing.
But what I don’t understand is the mission to spread these five rules among trainers. The two examples mentioned of rest and the eccentric phase are so ‘basic’ that you can expect any trained trainer to have this knowledge.
In my opinion, the advantage of a trainer is that they have much more knowledge than rules of thumb. More importantly, a good trainer knows what knowledge is important for his specific client. A good trainer knows what ‘optimal’ means in the case of his client.
That’s why we built the Online Coaching App. Because we realized that information like that on our blog is useless if it doesn’t reach the right place in the right form. If we could reduce everything to five golden rules, we could have achieved everyone’s fitness goals with just one article.
References
- bodylifebenelux.nl/magazine/artikel/1092/19069/traint-fitness-nederland-wel-effectief?
