Trainer Appearance

[bodyweight4ever]

Being in shape isn't always the best indicator either. The mental image i get when i think of a coach, for example, is an older guy with a loud yell and a fat belly. A guy who knows his stuff.

[Al Shades]

CrossFit games are for evaluating trainees, not their coaches. Nothing akin to what I described exists in this industry today. "Professional" trainers make a point of never directly comparing their skills with those of other coaches, for reasons of "professional courtesy".

The real reason, of course, is that it benefits the industry as a whole if the public is kept in the dark about what really works and what doesn't - who really knows what they're doing good, and who is just treading water.

As I said before, normal people have absolutely no reference point for objectively evaluating a coach's skills. That is likely why so many people pick "babysitter trainers" who simply make them feel good and provide them with "fun," albeit ineffective routines.

Same reason why dentists, doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc... never directly compare themselves with competitors in their advertising. People in such fields want to uphold the illuson that their work is "beyond the grasp of the common man" and to disparage their competitors would put a dent in that myth.

Bob the Furniture dealer will claim he's better than his competitors, but a lawyer, doctor, or well-known sports coach never will.

I also highly dislike Crossfit but that's a different story.

[DontSleep]

Originally Posted by Al Shades

I also highly dislike Crossfit but that's a different story.

If you dont mind me asking, why not?

[sasquatch989]

Originally Posted by Al Shades

CrossFit games are for evaluating trainees, not their coaches. Nothing akin to what I described exists in this industry today. "Professional" trainers make a point of never directly comparing their skills with those of other coaches, for reasons of "professional courtesy".

AH, good point. It makes sense since there really is only one coach. Amongst the community of affiliates one can evaluate those coaches, but of course that's crossfiters evaluating crossfiters

Originally Posted by Al Shades

The real reason, of course, is that it benefits the industry as a whole if the public is kept in the dark about what really works and what doesn't - who really knows what they're doing good, and who is just treading water.

As a free market shill, I would argue that it seems to benefit the industry as a whole, but sooner or later that house of cards will come down. competition is the engine of improvement.

Originally Posted by Al Shades

As I said before, normal people have absolutely no reference point for objectively evaluating a coach's skills. That is likely why so many people pick "babysitter trainers" who simply make them feel good and provide them with "fun," albeit ineffective routines.

I call this, 'the cancer that is killing our people'

Originally Posted by Al Shades

I also highly dislike Crossfit but that's a different story.

I suppose we all can't be perfect

[Maserati911]

I have been thru a few trainers, The first guy I hired was foul mouthed and dressed like a hobo. The second was a woman in incredible shape but she was just certified and really looked confused. The best trainer I have ever had is a local NPC competitor, He knows his nutrition and his workouts work because he follows the same thing.

[NDame616]

Originally Posted by Al Shades

Ndame616, judging by your previous post and your sig I'm sure that we have some fundamental disagreements on fitness in general and particularly how to train people best.

My sig is meant for the morons in the nutrition section who are 19, 185 lbs, and worried about eating ketchup because "they are on a cut". Or, this guy, in the "Meals Eating Now" thread:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...ostcount=11112

Originally Posted by Al Shades

I split everyone who participates in physical training into 3 categories:

1) People who want to improve performance
2) People want to improve appearance
&
3) People who have no clue what they're doing (i.e. everyone who doesn't fit into 1 or 2)

This makes zero sense. Sure, you can break them down like that, in theory. However, 95% of trainees are training because of group 2. It's that simple. 90% of trainees do it to lose fat, 5% to gain muscle, then everyone else. Of course, there's no research to these numbers, but a HUGE portion of trainees are fat loss clients, and it's that simple.

[QUOTE=Al Shades;287970411] Judging by your sig, you think that "bodybuilding" means training to put on as much muscle mass as possible, then dieting down to step on a stage wearing a bikini while tanned and oiled up. I have an entirely different working definition of bodybuilding.

Originally Posted by Al Shades

A bodybuilder, for me, is simply anyone who trains primarily for appearance. In other words, a cosmetic trainer, not an athlete. Category #2 above.

That's one of the most insane things in your post. It's just flawed logic. So, I'm a bodybuilder because I'm looking to stay lean? My 315 pound client crying herself to sleep at night because of her size is a bodybuilder. It makes zero sense to group anyone working out for appearence is a bodybuilder.

Originally Posted by Al Shades

The one thing that unites each group is the fact that they are primarily training to enhance their physical appearance.

(I didn't want to keep quoting large groups)

So what? People love dogs for a few reasons. Some like to have sex with them, others like them for their companionship. Me? I like their companionship. I don't think you can group them both into the "Dog lovers" category and call them the same type of people.

Just because someone wants to look good, no matter the reason (BB'er, fitness competetor, etc) doesn't mean they can all be grouped into the "bodybuilder" category.

Ugh I'm getting annoyed with multi quoting, so I will stop.

I just don't think your classification of "bodybuilders" makes sense. So I guess that's where we differ.

To me, bodybuilders are drug abusing genetic freaks and their workout routines and diets should be ignored by the rest of the population, since they have things going for them (drugs and genetics) that almost no one else has.

And Alwyn frequently has his trainees join a local competetion to judge his clients fat loss against other trainees fat loss, and his clients usually win in many categories. I think he said he left the gym he was working at years and years ago to start his own gym after his trainees swept the contest.

I know there's many thing that goes into a client losing fat, like diet, lifestyle, etc. I wasn't saying that everything is in the gym and the rest can be ignored. I was saying that there's methods of training that are better for EPOC and fat loss. Biceps curls in a machine just don't cut it.

I understand not many clients can do squats or deadlifts perfectly to start out. Doesn't mean you should ignroe getting them there. Ball squats, bodyweight box squats, etc will get them there. Looking at a fat client and saying "they will never be able to squat...let's go do a leg curl!" is flawed.

Saying a person will lose weight faster on machines because the technique is easier compared to free weights is so ass backwards I don't know where to begin. I've NEVER touched a machine with my clients who weren't pregnant, rehabbing, etc. If someone can't do a barbell squat...guess what? They don't! But we work their way up to it.

Originally Posted by Al Shades

A red herring. 90% of clients want fat loss. What is fat loss? Fat loss is looking better. Fat loss is improving your appearance. 90% of clients would benefit from a bodybuilding style routine, which is designed for maximal body recomposition (lose fat, build muscle).

Do you really think that if some housewive adopted Ronnie Coleman's exact routine, that she would "look like a BB'er" after a month or two? Lol? How come there are thousands of 19 year old men with flowing testosterone who do just that, and they still don't look anything like Coleman? You actually think it's so easy to do? Haha

While I appreciate discussing things with you, this last part was so stupid that it required me to quote it.

What is fat loss? ....really?

Fat loss is taking your percentage of body fat. And making it lower. If you do that, you've lost fat. Pretty simply.

Bodybuilders routines should be ignored because they are drug abusing genetic freaks. Therefore, unless you are abusing drugs or a genetic freak, you shouldn't train like that. I don't know any of my clients cycling Deca and worrying about a PCT, so I don't think they fall into that category.

Your last paragraph is just being a dick, taking what I was saying, twisting it, and trying to be humurous. And failing. When did I say anything like that?

A bodybuilder's routine should NOT be applied to normal people, because normal people don't have the assistance that bodybuilders have like drugs and genetics. However, you take a college kid taking some gear, and then he should lift like a bodybuilder/powerlifter because he is trying to get as big as possible while cycling.

Taking a bodybuilders routine and applying it to everyday people because bodybuilders "gain muscle and lose fat" is stupid. It doesn't make sense. Putting everyone who lifts for cosmetic reasons is also stupid, and doesn't make sense.

....all this before my morning coffee!

[Al Shades]

Originally Posted by DontSleep

If you dont mind me asking, why not?

Why don't I like it? Because it violates the law of specificity. That's why I don't like cross training in general. I'm trying to make people good at something and you simply can't do achieve that when you're simultaneously training multiple opposing qualities, like strength and endurance. Cross training is awful because it reinforces all the stupid misconceptions that normal people have about training, such as their pathetic whining about "not wanting to get too big", to name one example. If someone tells me they are deadset on developing their endurance and strength at the same time then I know they aren't going to go anywhere - they will look and perform exactly the same in half a year's time. Trainers really ought to know better than to endorse programs like this. Cross training, by it's very nature, is designed for beginners and it ensures that people will stay mediocre at whatever they do.

"If you try to do everything, you get nothing" -Charles Poliquin's on CrossFit

Originally Posted by Maserati911

I have been thru a few trainers, The first guy I hired was foul mouthed and dressed like a hobo. The second was a woman in incredible shape but she was just certified and really looked confused. The best trainer I have ever had is a local NPC competitor, He knows his nutrition and his workouts work because he follows the same thing.

There you go. People who are dedicated to this hobby know what the hell they are doing.

[Al Shades]

Originally Posted by NDame616

This makes zero sense. Sure, you can break them down like that, in theory. However, 95% of trainees are training because of group 2. It's that simple. 90% of trainees do it to lose fat, 5% to gain muscle, then everyone else. Of course, there's no research to these numbers, but a HUGE portion of trainees are fat loss clients, and it's that simple.

I don't dispute that for one second. I have made many posts lamenting the fact that practically no one in a commercial gym who uses a trainer is interested in gaining any appreciable muscle mass.

Still, fat loss is a subset of physical appearance and training for appearance is what differentiates bodybuilders from all other athletes who lift weights.

Originally Posted by NDame616

That's one of the most insane things in your post. It's just flawed logic. So, I'm a bodybuilder because I'm looking to stay lean? My 315 pound client crying herself to sleep at night because of her size is a bodybuilder. It makes zero sense to group anyone working out for appearence is a bodybuilder.

It makes total, perfect sense. "Bodybuilding" is the activity of using weight training and dietary modification to improve one's physical appearance.

If you disagree, then please tell me the "proper" name for that activity is.
Is it...

Weight lifting? No, that's different.
Power lifting? No, that's different.
Olympic Lifting? No, that's different.
Strong Man training? No, that's different.
Functional training? No, that's different.
Rehab training? No, that's different.
Cross training? No, that's different.

I am all out of buzzwords and I still haven't found any term to adequately describe people who lift weights and diet PRIMARILY for cosmetic purposes.

If the term for this activity isn't "bodybuilding," then what the hell is it?

I am really getting sick and tired of reading asinine stereotypes about BBing from people who haven't got a clue. I do not come on this board to argue with housewives. You sound like a housewife when you pretend that all bodybuilders necessarily want to compete on stage, take drugs, and get as huge as possible. That is absolute BS. There are even people on this board who follow the lifestyle in every way but wouldn't want to be as big as Coleman, and they freely admit this. There are people on here who won't even try PH's, nevermind large stacks of real gear like the pro's use.

Lastly, because personal appearance is *entirely subjective*, it follows that multiple people can all train to maximize their appearance while having completely different goals in mind. One guy may want to look like Brad Pitt. Another guy, like Dennis Wolf. Don't you get it?

The difference between Dennis Wolf and Brad Pitt, just in terms of physique, is enormous. It easily rivals the difference between a pro BB'er and a pro athlete in terms of athleticism. With such massive disparities in the training goals of self-professed "bodybuilders," you can't possibly justify the generalizations you've made in this thread.

There is only ONE generalization that can be made about bodybuilders and applied to each of them, without exception: They are all training for primarily cosmetic reasons.

You are getting hung up in the distinction between those wanting to gain mass and those wanting to lose fat, but what you fail to realize is that a person's physique goals largely reflect the CURRENT shape he is in when he starts training to achieve them. Since normal people are fat, fat loss takes priority over mass building to them. And since competitive BB'ers aren't obese, their primary emphasis is on mass building.

The distinction is entirely irrelevant. Both groups are looking to improve their appearance through body recomposition, as I pointed out before. That is the bottom line. I'm not going to keep arguing this because I've made this point many times.

Originally Posted by NDame616

Just because someone wants to look good, no matter the reason (BB'er, fitness competetor, etc) doesn't mean they can all be grouped into the "bodybuilder" category.

Yes. It. Does.

There is a reason why Fitness, Figure, Bodybuilding, and even Bikini contests are often lumped together in the same show. It's all fundamentally the same thing. Please get it through your head. Read this website and forum, for pete's sake.

Originally Posted by NDame616

And Alwyn frequently has his trainees join a local competetion to judge his clients fat loss against other trainees fat loss, and his clients usually win in many categories. I think he said he left the gym he was working at years and years ago to start his own gym after his trainees swept the contest.

O'rly? I've never heard of that. Doubt anyone else has, either.

Originally Posted by NDame616

I know there's many thing that goes into a client losing fat, like diet, lifestyle, etc. I wasn't saying that everything is in the gym and the rest can be ignored. I was saying that there's methods of training that are better for EPOC and fat loss. Biceps curls in a machine just don't cut it.

I understand not many clients can do squats or deadlifts perfectly to start out. Doesn't mean you should ignroe getting them there. Ball squats, bodyweight box squats, etc will get them there. Looking at a fat client and saying "they will never be able to squat...let's go do a leg curl!" is flawed.

Agonist-antagonist supersets on isolation machines burn plenty of calories, thank you very much. If your rest times are short there is simply no way that you can fail to burn calories, no matter what you are doing. Dropsets and supersets challenge anaerobic glycolysis, which is the optimal energy system to target for fat loss. High intensity circuit training on machines is where it's at for fat loss.

Originally Posted by NDame616

Saying a person will lose weight faster on machines because the technique is easier compared to free weights is so ass backwards I don't know where to begin. I've NEVER touched a machine with my clients who weren't pregnant, rehabbing, etc. If someone can't do a barbell squat...guess what? They don't! But we work their way up to it.

That takes too long with normal people and the benefits simply aren't there.

Originally Posted by NDame616

Bodybuilders routines should be ignored because they are drug abusing genetic freaks.

No they aren't. Bull**** argument. All pro athletes are on stuff.

Originally Posted by NDame616

A bodybuilder's routine should NOT be applied to normal people, because normal people don't have the assistance that bodybuilders have like drugs and genetics.

So what? If they don't have the assistance, then they use correspondingly lighter poundages, lol. It isn't rocket science. People obviously aren't going to be using as much weight in training as pro BB'ers. That is no reason why they shouldn't follow the same routines, however.

Originally Posted by NDame616

However, you take a college kid taking some gear, and then he should lift like a bodybuilder/powerlifter because he is trying to get as big as possible while cycling.

The fact that you lump BB'ers/PL'ers into the same category is the clearest sign yet that you don't know what you're on about. You see, on these boards, we have people who partake in both hobbies, and all of them would tell you that are considered to exist at ends of the spectrum. Only a "normal" who doesn't partake in or understand this hobby would ever lump them together. It is obvious from your statement that this describes you.

Originally Posted by NDame616

Taking a bodybuilders routine and applying it to everyday people because bodybuilders "gain muscle and lose fat" is stupid. It doesn't make sense. Putting everyone who lifts for cosmetic reasons is also stupid, and doesn't make sense.

Bah bah black sheep, it makes absolute sense. Read, think, and drink more before posting again.

[NDame616]

Originally Posted by Al Shades

That takes too long with normal people and the benefits simply aren't there.

The benefits aren't there to teach someone to squat right? Or do a proper lunge? Are you effing kidding me? Those are ESSENTIAL elements of ANY workout routine whether you're a professional athlete or a mother of 4 and everyone in between.

If you honestly think "the benefits aren't there" then I really, really feel sorry for your clients because you aren't taking their long term health into consideration. Learning to, and mastering the ability of, squatting is so important for ankle, hip and knee health both short and long term.

I've heard that story about Alwyn and why he left working at a gym when I attended a seminar where he spoke a few years ago. So, unless he lied to a few hundred trainer, it's true.

I just don't see the argument that taking Jay Cutler's routine, make the weights smaller, and apply that routine to a housewife as a fat loss routine to be the best way to train someone.

Are you a drug abusing bodybuilder, and that's why you take this stance?

[Al Shades]

Originally Posted by NDame616

If you honestly think "the benefits aren't there" then I really, really feel sorry for your clients because you aren't taking their long term health into consideration. Learning to, and mastering the ability of, squatting is so important for ankle, hip and knee health both short and long term.

I meant the benefits aren't there because they aren't going to progress. Most people will never go beyond wall squats. You can forget about putting a bar on their backs and progressively raising the weight. It just isn't going to happen. If you have an athlete it is a different story.

I use basic movements like the squat and lunge to assess people but in a hypothetical situation where the goal was to get in shape as fast as possible, I would not bother dicking around with free weights at all. Get em' on the machines and have them training hard from the first day.

Originally Posted by NDame616

I just don't see the argument that taking Jay Cutler's routine, make the weights smaller, and apply that routine to a housewife as a fat loss routine to be the best way to train someone.

Do you think Alwyn Cosgrove knows more about fat loss than Cutler? Lol, Jay gets down to 5% at competition time every year and has been doing it for over a decade. There are only a handful of people in the world who know so much about fat loss as Jay and your buddy AC isn't one of them.

Originally Posted by NDame616

Are you a drug abusing bodybuilder, and that's why you take this stance?

Not yet, but I strive to be. I've only abused a couple drugs in my time.

[NDame616]

Just because someone gets down to 5% BF with drugs and freakish genetics doesn't mean he knows more than someone else.

I think someone, like Alwyn, who has written thousands of programs for years and years getting housewives and "normal" people to lose hundreds of pounds of fat knows more than a drug abusing bodybuilder.

[Donica]

Originally Posted by noendsnoskinz

Judging on appearance, could the way a pt looks possibly get them more clients? I'm talking about someone who looks like a bodybuilder opposed to someone who just looks healthy.

I think it depends on the individual. Some people will be drawn to the "bodybuilder look", others may be somewhat intimidated. But either way, a trainer should probably look more like a bodybuilder or an athletic person as opposed to someone who is out of shape, since we are walking billboards for our vocation and if YOU don't practice what you preach, your potential clients may question your ability and discipline to train, educate, and transform THEM.

[colibri984]

I'm not sure if it's just the geographical market that I'm at but I've had two potential clients not want to train with me because I was a "cute, blonde", I'm 5'2", 120 and not an intimidating person to look at. They told my boss, BEFORE EVER SPEAKING TO ME, that they didn't want to be trained by "someone like me".
The guys at my club that are good looking have the best clients, the girls that are good looking, often get turned down.
I now have to contact my potential clients on the phone before meeting them in person so they get to know me instead of judge me based on my appearance.

[Jay Rawd]

Originally Posted by NDame616

there's a huge difference. One of the best fat loss trainers in the world is Alwyn Cosgrove. He has had cancer twice, both times on his death bed. He isn't exactly in shape....but there's no one out there better or smarter than him when it comes to fat loss.

One of the best sports trainers that Iknow of is mike Boyle. He's brilliant, and has trained top athletes from all levels pro and amateur. He looks like a science dork because...that's what he is.

I've worked at, and worked OUT at plenty of gyms with juice monkeys there that don't know WTF they are doing. Should I say a trainer should be a fat blob? No. However, I've seen plenty of worthless bodybuilder trainers (and, of course, I've seen tons of worthless "athletic-type" trainers

Alwyn Cosgrove is a quack who can't even come up with his original ideas. He completely plagiarized Lyle McDonald's book, almost word for word.

What a tool. Cosgrove sucks.

[NDame616]

He's a quack/took who runs one of the most popular and successful training facilities in California, and has helped hundreds of people lose thousands of pounds of fat, all while making tons of money doing it.

And I've met him and talked to him on the phone a bunch. He's a great guy.

So, I wish I was a quack and a tool!

[Jay Rawd]

Originally Posted by NDame616

He's a quack/took who runs one of the most popular and successful training facilities in California, and has helped hundreds of people lose thousands of pounds of fat, all while making tons of money doing it.

And I've met him and talked to him on the phone a bunch. He's a great guy.

So, I wish I was a quack and a tool!

What a terrible argument. So because he's a freaking con artist, that makes him a worthwhile trainer? Not only that, but because "he's nice" that takes away from the fact that he's a fraud?

But you do admit he is a quack then? Why would you hire a quack? Why not hire someone who actually knows what they're doing? Alwyn just copies everything from the latest diet and fitness fads and charges people a bunch of money. You don't see a problem with this? Or do you have some sort of crush on him?

[martymcfly]

Originally Posted by Jay Rawd

What a terrible argument. So because he's a freaking con artist, that makes him a worthwhile trainer? Not only that, but because "he's nice" that takes away from the fact that he's a fraud?

But you do admit he is a quack then? Why would you hire a quack? Why not hire someone who actually knows what they're doing? Alwyn just copies everything from the latest diet and fitness fads and charges people a bunch of money. You don't see a problem with this? Or do you have some sort of crush on him?

Jay, please don't tell me you're calling Lyle McDonald a "fad" or "latest diet" person. personally, I think he is a genius

[Jay Rawd]

Originally Posted by martymcfly

Jay, please don't tell me you're calling Lyle McDonald a "fad" or "latest diet" person. personally, I think he is a genius

I wasn't referring to Lyle. I was referring to Crossfit mainly.

Lyle is the man.

[Al Shades]

Originally Posted by NDame616

Just because someone gets down to 5% BF with drugs and freakish genetics doesn't mean he knows more than someone else.

Yeah it does, lol.

You learn from doing, not reading. Knowledge is only useful insofar as it is applied.

Anybody who has put in the time and dedication to diet down to 5% and step on stage has learned a ton in the process, and these people are usually leaps and bounds ahead of the guys who "lift weights" but don't really take the sport seriously.

I always say that I'm working on mental change, first and foremost, with my clients, because the majority of people who hire PT's are not gifted athletically and never have been. More than anything else, they need to get "good" at something. They need to reach a relatively high level of athleticism in some respect, whether it's running, boxing, tennis, or whatever. The reason for that is so that they'll adopt a positive mentality which all successful athletes have. That is why I am heavily inclined towards specialization programs for beginners and don't have a high opinion of cross fit type programs. I want people to give people a taste of what it's like to attempt a difficult task and succeed because the confidence and inner awareness that comes from doing that will stay with them even if they stop training altogether.

Why prescribe more mediocrity to people who are already mediocre?
There is no glory to be had in mastering bosu ball lunges.
And yet normal people will never put in the time it takes to be able to use respectable poundages on compounds lifts. Why should they when all they want is to shrink their ass and gut?
That's why I wrote in an earlier post that as a trainer your two choices for training modalities are A) Swiss Ball BS from the NASM manual and B) Machine based, bodybuilding-style isolation training for targetted hypertrophy and fat loss.

A choice like that isn't a choice at all. Option B wins every time.

[Vadim Beliaev]

dont argue with morons who have tinfoil hats over their eyes and attempt to justify their own mediocrity on everyone else "abusing" substances.

NDame616, negs is the least you deserve. Too bad thats all i can give you.

[Al Shades]

Jay Rawd, do you have more info on how Cosgrove plagiarized McDonald? Did Lyle himself ever comment on the issue? I'd be interested in reading about it.

Edit: NM, google answered the question. More info can be found here:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/mis...sm-part-2.html

Originally Posted by colibri984

I'm not sure if it's just the geographical market that I'm at but I've had two potential clients not want to train with me because I was a "cute, blonde", I'm 5'2", 120 and not an intimidating person to look at. They told my boss, BEFORE EVER SPEAKING TO ME, that they didn't want to be trained by "someone like me".
The guys at my club that are good looking have the best clients, the girls that are good looking, often get turned down.
I now have to contact my potential clients on the phone before meeting them in person so they get to know me instead of judge me based on my appearance.

1) I'm guessing the two potential clients were either females or male athletes. Am I correct?
2) What kind of build do you have? Are you in shape?
3) The designation of "good looking" tends to be applied differently to each sex. With guys, it usually means they're tall and fit, whereas with girls it's generally a measure of facial attractiveness. That's why a girl can be "good looking" but not have the type of body that people associate with a fitness trainer. Sometimes, at least.

[NDame616]

Oh no Vadim! Don't take away my green dots! Looks like SOMEONE is losing sleep tonight...

No, I don't think Alwyn is a quack. I've seen the results he's gotten. I've seen his facility. I've met his staff. Dude gets results and gets an insane amount of money doing it. I don't care or know if he's ripped off anyone and their ideas. I've read his stuff, and his methods are always backed up with research, studies, etc. he's successfully trained anyone from professional MMA fighters to housewives and gotten everyone to lose weight. He speaks to trainers all across the world to teach them how to get people to lose weight.

All I was saying was taking a bodybuilder's routine and applying it to a housewife is stupid and flawed logic. And a steriod abusing bodybuilder negs me. Strange.

Applying a steroid abusing bodybuilder's workout routine is like taking the engine out of a winning NASCAR drivers car, putting into my Hummer, and expecting the same results.

People who are on stage and assisted by drugs probably showed dedication, but they enhanced their progress by, what...5% bf? 10% bf? What would Jay Cutler, Ronnie, etc look like without drugs? Probably a little different is my guess.

It boggles my mind how people don't understand this.

Al, you don't understand the basic concepts of exercise. I've never put a client on a machine because I don't see the point unless it's rehab purposes. You're admitted that you don't see the point in teaching your clinet squats and lunges. So that goes to show your skill as a trainer. And, I guess according to you, there's no middle ground between a BOSU ball lunge (something else I've never done) and machines. How about...free weights?

[jake777]

Originally Posted by noendsnoskinz

Judging on appearance, could the way a pt looks possibly get them more clients? I'm talking about someone who looks like a bodybuilder opposed to someone who just looks healthy.

does tht apply for fitness instructors to, disregard the display pic its a year old.

at first i went for the bulky look i did have some fat but clear muscle definition...

the guy who teaches my advised a leaner approach so i started proper leaning dwn etc

[Dlauger]

I think it definitely matters. I am only training part time currently but I have been doing it since I was 17 and I have had a lot of friends that are trainers and the ones that look the best and appear to be in shape always have the most clients. I know this shouldn't matter but the ones that look better in the face also get more clients . . . yeah its stupid.
I work out at Gold's now and the trainers there that are in awesome shape are slammed w/ clients. The ones that look no better than your average "not fat person" have only a few clients and they end up standing around all the time w/ nothing to do.

Bottom line - like it or not, appearance is a a big thing for anyone in the business of improving another's appearance.

[Al Shades]

Originally Posted by Maserati911

I have been thru a few trainers, The first guy I hired was foul mouthed and dressed like a hobo. The second was a woman in incredible shape but she was just certified and really looked confused. The best trainer I have ever had is a local NPC competitor, He knows his nutrition and his workouts work because he follows the same thing.

In your avatar, you look like a guy in one of the pics from Joe DeFranco's site. Is that you?

[bjjbadboy]

just read the first few post about whats considered "in shape" i didnt hear anybody mention any vitals pulse rate and blood pressure, maybe do a step test etc, this is the important stuff is whats going on inside..plus if your inshape your not going to be around 30%bf it just doesnt happen like that maybe sometimes but 9/10 if your pulse is sitting well under 60 at rest and have a health b/p its b/c you are being fit and "most of the time" you will lose bf. alot more needs to be taking into consideration....

[martymcfly]

Originally Posted by Jay Rawd

I wasn't referring to Lyle. I was referring to Crossfit mainly.

Lyle is the man.

perfect.

[Jay Rawd]

Speaking of Lyle, I'm not so sure what his physique looks like, but either way I wouldn't mind paying the guy for some training or diet advice.

Doesn't Jay Cutler hire Chris Aceto, a guy who is about 100 lb. lighter than he is (if not more)? Same with Chris Cormier hiring Charles Glass.

[John Prophet]

it IS pretty interesting that the word "personal trainer" DOES evoke a certain image in the publics mind.

5'10", 20 years old, 153 lbs, no visible muscle except maybe abs, clean cut, no facial hair, logo'd polo shirt.

even the industry itself seems to promote that cliched look:http://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Per...pd_sim_b_njs_2


obviously, "looks" are pretty important, but people skills are probably more important. right or wrong, a trainer with a good vibe can get plenty of business even if he isnt in great shape himself.

[jando]

JOE DEFRANCO?
Are you guys in the PA/NJ area?