Balance/Stability training is the most retarded gimmick to ever enter the Industry

[jakobparker50]

I'm working towards getting my NASM certification because that's what mainstream gyms seem to recognize. But I have a feeling I'm never going to be able to work for a mainstream gym cause I don't believe this bullchit and am not going to support this stupid gimmick.


There are lots of studies done that prove how useless this stuff is.

https://www.t-nation.com/training/bo...d-bad-and-ugly

https://www.issaonline.edu/blog/inde...Improve-Speed-



The only thing doing single leg squats on a bosu ball is going to make you better at is doing single leg squats on a bosu ball.

Law of specificity.

How many times in your life do you do anything on an unstable surface similar to a bosu ball? that's right almost never. It doesn't transfer over towards anything and just prevents you from making real progress from legitimate training methods.

[BC02]

i'm working towards getting my nasm certification because that's what mainstream gyms seem to recognize. But i have a feeling i'm never going to be able to work for a mainstream gym cause i don't believe this bullchit and am not going to support this stupid gimmick.


There are lots of studies done that prove how useless this stuff is.

https://www.t-nation.com/training/bo...d-bad-and-ugly

https://www.issaonline.edu/blog/inde...improve-speed-



the only thing doing single leg squats on a bosu ball is going to make you better at is doing single leg squats on a bosu ball.

Law of specificity.

How many times in your life do you do anything on an unstable surface similar to a bosu ball? That's right almost never. It doesn't transfer over towards anything and just prevents you from making real progress from legitimate training methods.

exactly

[NaturalPursuit]

To be honest, after I earned my NASM CPT, it only gave me the legal rights to train in a commercial gym…the course itself had some basics covered but many of it is not applicable to the majority of clientele to be honest

[Camms1234]

Going from the advice on this forum I thought NASM was suppose to be the gold standard in PT certification. It sounds abit like something taught in the 90's.

[JohnSmeton]

I had three clients 60 plus last year -some had slight balance issues and another had worse- she was like 70 or so, and I did lunges, step ups and such

I think balance, stability training is a must if someone needs it and enhances there life.

[rdferguson]

I had three clients 60 plus last year -some had slight balance issues and another had worse- she was like 70 or so, and I did lunges, step ups and such

I think balance, stability training is a must if someone needs it and enhances there life.

Yep.

Key point here is that balance training is valuable relative to its context.

In a manner, all training is balance/stability training. Do a bodyweight squat on solid ground: you need to keep your weight over your midfoot/heel. Do a barbell squat on solid ground: you need to keep the bar over your midfoot/heel. When you need more balance, you modify exercises to make balance hard but not impossible. When the level balance you have is all you need, you keep exercises as they are (or modify along other axes).

[CSCSpower]

What is worse is that many gyms now try to enforce the OPT model. Lifetime Fitness and 24 Hour Fitness are notorious for this.

[MikeCaulo]

I'm working towards getting my NASM certification because that's what mainstream gyms seem to recognize. But I have a feeling I'm never going to be able to work for a mainstream gym cause I don't believe this bullchit and am not going to support this stupid gimmick.


There are lots of studies done that prove how useless this stuff is.

https://www.t-nation.com/training/bo...d-bad-and-ugly

https://www.issaonline.edu/blog/inde...Improve-Speed-



The only thing doing single leg squats on a bosu ball is going to make you better at is doing single leg squats on a bosu ball.

Law of specificity.

How many times in your life do you do anything on an unstable surface similar to a bosu ball? that's right almost never. It doesn't transfer over towards anything and just prevents you from making real progress from legitimate training methods.

I would 100% say there is value of "balance/agility" or proprioception training. Check out this journal supporting the impact proprioception training has on both muscular strength and obviously proprioception aka the bodies spacial awareness which is crucial is sports to know where you and your limbs are at all times. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...38620590956197

[jakobparker50]

I would 100% say there is value of "balance/agility" or proprioception training. Check out this journal supporting the impact proprioception training has on both muscular strength and obviously proprioception aka the bodies spacial awareness which is crucial is sports to know where you and your limbs are at all times. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...38620590956197

Just because stability training can be useful for rehabilitation doesn't mean it should form the foundational base that everything revolves around like NASM seems to suggest. Especially when they could actually be making improvements with valid training methods.



Perhaps balance training does hold a valid place for a small percentage of people. But training on a bosu ball isn't going to transfer to stable surface balance. Nobody does anything on a bosu ball irl.

[KyleAaron]

Yes, it is stupid. So don't do it with your clients.

Next question?

[Voltri]

Meh. Balance training has a place for some people, like a 80 year old women who's concerned about breaking her hip in a fall. She's someone that could use some sort of balance work (Not on a BOSU ball, of course). On the flip side, a 20 year old guy who wants to gain strength has no need for balance work.

Look at the OPT model, and NASM's approach in general, and apply some critical thinking when implementing.

[MarcAWilson]

All about context. Constantly leaning forward/not shooting hips far back enough/ knees caving in while squatting? Get on a bosu with a band around the shins and do a set of 10. When they get back under the bar, their balance will be much better.

But fuk these trainers who have their clients play catch on one leg for an hour. Drives me nuts.

[rdferguson]

Just because stability training can be useful for rehabilitation doesn't mean it should form the foundational base that everything revolves around like NASM seems to suggest. Especially when they could actually be making improvements with valid training methods.



Perhaps balance training does hold a valid place for a small percentage of people. But training on a bosu ball isn't going to transfer to stable surface balance. Nobody does anything on a bosu ball irl.

You make it out as though training specifically to improve balance only has benefits in obscure circumstances. That's not what the video suggests. Video suggests that balance training under unstable conditions is often valid, but building strength under stable conditions should be a pre-requisite, since that strength is what's going to enable such balance. And he's correct in saying so.

[jakobparker50]

You make it out as though training specifically to improve balance only has benefits in obscure circumstances. That's not what the video suggests. Video suggests that balance training under unstable conditions is often valid, but building strength under stable conditions should be a pre-requisite, since that strength is what's going to enable such balance. And he's correct in saying so.

That's just that video. All the articles in the first post branch out to a bunch of studies that basically prove unstable surface training is almost always useless.

Regardless of whether or not unstable surface training has ANY valid uses, I think it's been a major detriment to collective progress because It's served as a huge distraction to training methods that are much more beneficial.

[BC02]

going from the advice on this forum i thought nasm was suppose to be the gold standard in pt certification. It sounds abit like something taught in the 90's.

nsca= the gold standard

[Camms1234]

nsca= the gold standard

I was saying in jest that NASM is the GS but going by all the NASM nutriders on this forum you would think it is!

[KyleAaron]

Meh. Balance training has a place for some people, like a 80 year old women who's concerned about breaking her hip in a fall. She's someone that could use some sort of balance work (Not on a BOSU ball, of course).

Yes, like squats to a bench and rack pulls. Progressing, if possible, to full squats and deadlifts.

Sitting down and standing up again with resistance is balance work. Controlling seven foot of steel is balance work.



Balance has 3 components,
1. inner ear / brain
2. reaction speed - can you react quickly enough to right yourself before falling
3. strength - can you exert enough force to overcome the stumble, eg it is harder to stand up from your trunk being at 45 degrees (in any direction) than from 10 degrees.

Inner ear / brain stuff is mostly inherent in the person, but tends to decline with lack of use, and with age - though how much due to lack of use, and how much age itself, is unclear. Only slightly trainable, and hard to measure directly.

Reaction speed correlates strongly with things like vertical jump, and is not very trainable. It certainly declines with age, which is one reason older drivers have more accidents despite their driving experience, and why they instinctively drive slowly. Likewise not very trainable, might increase 5-10% at most after a few years of dedicated effort.

Strength is all we have left as an aspect of balance, and it is very, very trainable.

[MikeCaulo]

Just because stability training can be useful for rehabilitation doesn't mean it should form the foundational base that everything revolves around like NASM seems to suggest. Especially when they could actually be making improvements with valid training methods.



Perhaps balance training does hold a valid place for a small percentage of people. But training on a bosu ball isn't going to transfer to stable surface balance. Nobody does anything on a bosu ball irl.

I agree that strength by itself is best grown by strength training movements on stable surfaces but he even mentions in the video the value or balance training isn't strength gain per say but can have performance improvement for performing an action in a set circumstance. Lets say for an mma fighter, having the ability to do a chest press on one leg can mimic fighting a single leg while balancing on one leg. So understanding the goal, and applying the right training is the key here. So again I see what you are saying and the video is saying but in both cases you cannot devalue stability training with the right application

[jakobparker50]

I agree that strength by itself is best grown by strength training movements on stable surfaces but he even mentions in the video the value or balance training isn't strength gain per say but can have performance improvement for performing an action in a set circumstance. Lets say for an mma fighter, having the ability to do a chest press on one leg can mimic fighting a single leg while balancing on one leg. So understanding the goal, and applying the right training is the key here. So again I see what you are saying and the video is saying but in both cases you cannot devalue stability training with the right application

Balance comes naturally when you practice for your craft. If you need to develop balance for roundhouse kicks etc you will develop the balance from actually practicing roundhouse kicks. Standing on a bosu ball won't do jack chit for you.

NASM implying that stability training is the foundation that all other stages of training should revolve around is absurd.
NASM completely ignores the law of specificity in they're stabilization phase.

Quoted from https://www.issaonline.edu/blog/inde...Improve-Speed-

"who is more than likely going to be better at performing a balance related task?

The obvious answer would be the athlete.

Why?

Because they tend to almost always possess higher levels of maximum strength and power due to athletic training and sport demands. Thus, if they are able to handle gravity, momentum, and any other sort of resistance with relative ease, then naturally, they will be able to maintain control of their body however and whenever they see fit.

The answer to better balance has never come from actual balance training, but rather comprehensive athletic training where balance training becomes a natural by-product and is practiced all of the time. "

[rdferguson]

A really obvious question that we seem to keep overlooking or only vaguely engaging with in this discussion is: "What is balance training?" By which I don't mean: "What does NASM have in their OPT-model as their stabilisation phase?" No, I mean: "What training improves balance?"

For the majority of people, practicing manageable technique on major movements will create an increase in proprioception and force production, meaning enhanced familiarity with the focal movements, increased kinaesthetic awareness and greater strength. So far, this doesn't sound like anything that would be too controversial amongst anyone already in this thread. Developing balance and stability is embedded in developing technique, and is a natural consequence of getting stronger.

I think most people in this thread would agree that developing healthy movement patterns and useful technique is always a training priority, and is something that needs a lot of work early on when someone first starts training. If we don't make this a priority, then we will see clients easily injuring themselves and we will see very unbalanced movements. They will be more likely to drop weights, fall forwards/backwards/sideways under load, have limbs cave in under load and retreat to a fetal position. As we teach them things that actually allow them to get into good positions and generate force in those positions, we will find that our clients become more stable and balanced in the gym.

So far, so good. Not much controversy here, or at least there shouldn't be.

Where this gets interesting is that the above coaching method involves directly teaching the client how to be more stable under the same external conditions. The "stability" training that is primarily being criticised, however, aspires to make balance easier longterm by exposing the client to conditions in which external stability is removed short term. I maintain that there can be a place for this (I honestly DGAF that it doesn't apply to the majority of clients; for the purposes of the conversation I do care about when it is and isn't important, and there are conditions in which it is valuable, regardless of how infrequently we may encounter these conditions), but I also side with the majority who are saying that this particular method of training for stability is not a good starting place. Doing something that's more difficult in order to make something similar easier is all well and good, but the simpler variation needs to already be ingrained before moving onto more complex variations is sensible. Start simple, add complexity only when it is beneficial to do so. There may be a time to squat on a bosu, but that time is never before you can squat on solid ground, in the same way that there are times when it is good to do squat cleans, but those times are not before you can do either squats or cleans.

[KyleAaron]

There is another reason not to do this stuff with people: it makes them look and feel stupid.

The typical new gym member walks in imagining that they'll be the fattest (or skinniest), weakest, clumsiest and most useless person there - and everyone will be looking at them. Of course there's always someone worse than them, and nobody is looking anyway because they're too busy looking at themselves. But that's how they feel.

Okay, take a self-conscious newbie, and follow the recommendations of these courses.

• They're self-conscious about their bodyfat. Time for calipers!
• They're self-conscious about being unfit. Hey! Let's exhaust them! Wingate bike test
• They're self-conscious about their posture. Postual assessment time! "Well there is an excessive lordosis..." Bonus points for using latin words to make them feel dumb, too!
• They're self-conscious about being clumsy. Okay, let's get them to do a one-legged squat on a bosu ball! Bonus points if they actually fall off.
• Of course, it's best to do as much of this as possible in front of the whole gym. Okay, maybe not the calipers.

In sum, you've taken a person who feels self-conscious about their inadequacies, and measured their inadequacies to three decimal points while doing your best to let everyone in the gym know about it.

"So I do the assessments like the book told me, I don't know why people won't sign up for PT."

Well, you humiliated the poor bugger. Can't blame them really. How about this instead: make the person feel competent and useful. Show them they're stronger and fitter than they thought they were.
"Well look, I find that when people can do 15 or so pushups from the knees, they can do a couple from their toes. Try it."
Or "I think you probably can squat the empty bar. It'll take a few minutes to get the hang of it, but I think you can do it."

They're standing on Comfort Zone Beach. You don't have to throw them in the water, just let them dip their toes in, maybe wade about a bit and get their shins wet.

As Dan John says, people want three things from a gym or sports team: results, community and "don't make me look stupid." None of these come from bosu balls.

[CSCSpower]

What people don't understand is that when you coach movements like squats and farmer's walks you already are training balance and stability. The difference is you are training it using movements that actually get people results.
Balance isn't some separate component of fitness that needs to be compartmentalized, it had to be towards something specific and it is a waste of time to train it doing things they will never do IRL like bosu balls.

[mikenorwood961]

I'm working towards getting my NASM certification because that's what mainstream gyms seem to recognize. But I have a feeling I'm never going to be able to work for a mainstream gym cause I don't believe this bullchit and am not going to support this stupid gimmick.

Then why get certification to work in a mainstream gym? You might as well get trained to cook at McDonalds, but complain because you don't want to cook fast food.

[CSCSpower]

I am a CSCS who works at a mainstream gym. The key is to ignore all the bs nasm and other trainers tell you and just train your clients with actual movements that get results.

[rdferguson]

There is another reason not to do this stuff with people: it makes them look and feel stupid.

The typical new gym member walks in imagining that they'll be the fattest (or skinniest), weakest, clumsiest and most useless person there - and everyone will be looking at them. Of course there's always someone worse than them, and nobody is looking anyway because they're too busy looking at themselves. But that's how they feel.

Okay, take a self-conscious newbie, and follow the recommendations of these courses.

• They're self-conscious about their bodyfat. Time for calipers!
• They're self-conscious about being unfit. Hey! Let's exhaust them! Wingate bike test
• They're self-conscious about their posture. Postual assessment time! "Well there is an excessive lordosis..." Bonus points for using latin words to make them feel dumb, too!
• They're self-conscious about being clumsy. Okay, let's get them to do a one-legged squat on a bosu ball! Bonus points if they actually fall off.
• Of course, it's best to do as much of this as possible in front of the whole gym. Okay, maybe not the calipers.

In sum, you've taken a person who feels self-conscious about their inadequacies, and measured their inadequacies to three decimal points while doing your best to let everyone in the gym know about it.

"So I do the assessments like the book told me, I don't know why people won't sign up for PT."

Well, you humiliated the poor bugger. Can't blame them really. How about this instead: make the person feel competent and useful. Show them they're stronger and fitter than they thought they were.
"Well look, I find that when people can do 15 or so pushups from the knees, they can do a couple from their toes. Try it."
Or "I think you probably can squat the empty bar. It'll take a few minutes to get the hang of it, but I think you can do it."

They're standing on Comfort Zone Beach. You don't have to throw them in the water, just let them dip their toes in, maybe wade about a bit and get their shins wet.

As Dan John says, people want three things from a gym or sports team: results, community and "don't make me look stupid." None of these come from bosu balls.

This is a really good point, and while I'd debate some of the minutia, the summary pretty much says my approach to personal training. They're already self-conscious about their bodies and feel inadequate and insecure. Rather than highlighting their insecurities and giving extra reason to feel insecure, start with something they can do and make them feel good about it.

When I take someone who has never trained before, they've usually never done anything resembling a full ROM squat before. I won't have them mastering anything on the first day, but it's been a long time since I failed to have anyone reaching proper depth and standing back up again. We do that at the start of the first workout, and they're already excited to discover they can do something that they didn't think they could do when they walked in the front door. Then we'll hinge against a wall, and suddenly they've learned that they can bend at the hips without slouching over. That's two new things they can do. With women, it's always great getting them to bench press the first time. Just teach them how to set up with their chest up and shoulders tight and have them hold the bar locked out over their chest. Rack the bar. If that felt alright, get them back into position and tell them to unlock their elbows. Spot them very closely as if it's a 1RM and let them decide how deep they're willing to go -- 9x/10 I'll have women benching through a full ROM within the first 3 attempted reps, while I've only had one female client who wasn't intimidated by the bench at first. Get them doing all of the above and they've already completed 3 things that they didn't think they could do. As a trainer, the trick is knowing what's realistic for a client to do and properly scaffolding your instruction so that they'll grasp and succeed.

[MikeCaulo]

Proprioception holds its value given the proper application, goal and client. Again I go back to performance improvement and this article brings up another benefit of "balance training" improving motor skills. ISSA also covers this topic in many of its textbooks and are extremely beneficial for kids and elderly as well.

http://jn.physiology.org/content/108/12/3313.short

https://www.growingbolder.com/stephen-jepson-851373/

[vanfreak]

One of the first things I tell my P/T students...."If you see a Trainer getting someone on a Bosu Ball- that is the fastest way to spot an incompetent Trainer."

[dirtbikeguy]

All about context. Constantly leaning forward/not shooting hips far back enough/ knees caving in while squatting? Get on a bosu with a band around the shins and do a set of 10. When they get back under the bar, their balance will be much better.

But fuk these trainers who have their clients play catch on one leg for an hour. Drives me nuts.

Trainers are trying to be Physical Therapists too often. It's quite tiring to see perfectly stable people doing exercises that I'd give someone who had their ACL reconstructed.


That's what happens when any random Joe can become Certified in a weekend. It's even better when the gyms don't actually require any certifications, other than looking the part.

[rdferguson]

One of the first things I tell my P/T students...."If you see a Trainer getting someone on a Bosu Ball- that is the fastest way to spot an incompetent Trainer."

If you see a trainer getting someone to do anything at all, that's the fastest way to spot a trainer who has at least one client. Take note of what they're doing right. Better yet, ask them.

[KyleAaron]

Ryan makes a good point.

There are two words in our job title, to be successful you only have to be good at one of them - personal will do, trainer will do. Dave Tate wrote an article about the clueless trainer paradox.

"But while we were bitching and moaning in our crappy little break room, she was out there hustling. While we picked her training style apart like a group of wash-women, she was leveraging her client base to pick up higher profile clients, raising her rates, and negotiating bigger and better deals with some of the biggest players in the fitness business."

It is more common to be good at the personal than the trainer part. But the personal matters. And that's what we have to learn from trainers fcking around on bosu balls.