How deep do you go with the science?

[soren_xavier]

I'm studying to for the NSCA-CPT and it made me wonder how deep most trainers go in their own knowledge of the more complicated scientific concepts.

Personally, I find a lot of the first 4 chapters of the book to be difficult to understand and it almost seems like it was written for someone who already has a solid grounding in exercise science. I wish they would start with the very basics but it seems almost like they jump into the middle.

The interesting thing is that, according to the NSCA's exam handbook, almost none of the test actually covers these advanced scientific concepts (like the phos****en energy system or how to measure linear kinetic energy), focusing instead on practical knowledge like program design and proper exercise form.

Personally, to be honest, while I do find some of this serious scientific information interesting, I can't say it's really changed the way that I personally train myself or would have much bearing on how I train someone else. Nor do I really feel like it's necessary to know in order to have a strong understanding of how to go about exercising in a safe and effective way. It seems to me, for instance, that the important thing to know is that you have to create an energy deficit in order to burn fat and that knowing the interior process of how exactly the body goes about this task is more along the lines of "interesting information" rather than essential information.

So what's everyone's take on this? Do you personally delve deeply into the underlying science? How important do you think this is to being a successful trainer?

[WoofieNugget]

I get into it only because I enjoy learning about it myself, but in terms of clients 98% of them don't care. It is the application that matters. However, you also have to be careful about falling into the trap of trying to apply too much to a person without giving them time to adapt to one thing at a time.

I find stuff like neurophysiology and the physics of movement fascinating and I think it makes me a better trainer because I'm interested in what I do every day. But if your client doesn't care, don't subject them to it.

[jonmd123]

For you, the science is extremely important. It's the difference between the trainer that says things like, "you shouldn't eat carbs before you workout because then you won't burn fat" or "make sure you get at least 2 grams of protein per pound of body weight a day," and someone that can actually give their clients sound advice. It's also very important in how you design programs and teach technique. How do you design programs now, just use what your gym teacher taught you in high school? If you want to be strictly a weight-loss trainer that's fine, but if you ever want to work with elderly, athletes, or bodybuilders you need to understand the science.

For your clients, they don't care and don't bother trying to sound smart unless they ask for an explanation. For example, when I have people foam roll I'll usually tell them it's a massage for their muscles before we start moving. If they look at me strange, I'll drop some knowledge on them.

It also depends on the client. I feel men want to know more about why we are doing certain things, where I think female clients usually hire a trainer because they want that part of their life taken care of without actively thinking about the science behind everything.

FWIW I have read the NSCA text at least 5 times cover-to-cover, while highlighting the important text. Every time I go through it I get a better understanding of the body, and it definitely affects what I do with my clients.

[PerFit]

Unless they specifically ask, keep things simple for your clients. Use words and terms they understand. They will be more compliant as they 'get' what you are teaching them

[KyleAaron]

Let's flip the question around:

Do you think that having a deeper understanding of exercise physiology and physics will make you a worse trainer?

[palumboism]

almost none of the test actually covers these advanced scientific concepts (like the phos****en energy system or how to measure linear kinetic energy), focusing instead on practical knowledge like program design and proper exercise form.

There is definitely a limit to how useful these details will be for your real world applications.
But... they have to fill a book, they have to sell a book - its really that simple. Jobs for the boys. You might as well join them, do the best you can don't try to change the world. If you have to to waste some time learning irrelevant info, consider it the cost of doing business.

Let's flip the question around:

Do you think that having a deeper understanding of exercise physiology and physics will make you a worse trainer?

Sure - coz there's more important things that time could be spent on.

[shredorded]

I kind of get where OP is coming from. For example I've only explained once to someone the sliding filament theory, and only because I thought they might find it interesting. Truth be told it's the furthest thing from my mind when I'm teaching someone how to deadlift, bench press shoulder press etc.

[soren_xavier]

For you, the science is extremely important. It's the difference between the trainer that says things like, "you shouldn't eat carbs before you workout because then you won't burn fat" or "make sure you get at least 2 grams of protein per pound of body weight a day," and someone that can actually give their clients sound advice. It's also very important in how you design programs and teach technique. How do you design programs now, just use what your gym teacher taught you in high school? If you want to be strictly a weight-loss trainer that's fine, but if you ever want to work with elderly, athletes, or bodybuilders you need to understand the science.

You see, and that brings up another point: It seems that our ideas about things are constantly changing. What was gospel yesterday is bro science today. You mention the bit about eating carbs before working out, and what is interesting about that is that just yesterday I was reading in the NSCA text and it seemed to indicate that this is exactly right--if you eat carbs before you work out your body will turn to it first for energy. But, as you are seeming to point out here, there is plenty of evidence that this isn't really the case at all.

Another thing I read--and I wish I could find the exact quote--seemed to say that heart rate influences whether or not the body turns to carbs or fat for energy: That lower intensity aerobic exercise prefers to use fat for energy, while higher intensity aerobic exercise will go for the carbs first. But this is of course directly contradicted by other sources and evidence that shows exercises like spints are great for burning fat.

It seems like every day there is some new truth that totally contradicts something about which we previously said, "Yes, this is reality." And there is also some study to back it up.

For this reason, I have just always stuck purely to the fundamentals. If you want to lose weight, eat less than your body burns and exercise in a manner than will help you burn more calories and maintain muscle. If you want to build muscle, eat more than your body burns, consume enough protein, and lift with intensity.

Of course that is simplified, but it seems like once we get outside of this pure core of truth, we are getting into theories that may be widely accepted today but disproven tomorrow.

[soren_xavier]

Let's flip the question around:

Do you think that having a deeper understanding of exercise physiology and physics will make you a worse trainer?

I would always choose more knowledge and greater understanding, but as another poster hinted at, there is only so much time and there is a LOT of information out there. You have to make choices on what to focus on. I am trying to figure out what directions are the wisest to direct my attention to, considering the limited amount of time I have to study right now.

[soren_xavier]

There is definitely a limit to how useful these details will be for your real world applications.
But... they have to fill a book, they have to sell a book - its really that simple. Jobs for the boys. You might as well join them, do the best you can don't try to change the world. If you have to to waste some time learning irrelevant info, consider it the cost of doing business.

Well, it's like I said in my original post, I do consider it to be INTERESTING information. But I really don't think a lot of the stuff in the early chapters of the NSCA book are particularly well explained for the beginning student and for the deep science stuff that I have gotten a good grasp on, I can't say it has had much effect on how I do things in the gym.

Sure - coz there's more important things that time could be spent on.

And I guess this is one reason I asked the question. There are all kinds of things study/research time could be spent on so I was wondering how many trainers have put the time into getting REALLY into the science and how many have just learned the general scientific ideas and put most of their time into learning what I would call "practical" knowledge.

[soren_xavier]

I kind of get where OP is coming from. For example I've only explained once to someone the sliding filament theory, and only because I thought they might find it interesting. Truth be told it's the furthest thing from my mind when I'm teaching someone how to deadlift, bench press shoulder press etc.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. I've been bench pressing for years with little more than the knowledge of how to properly do the exercise, and how many reps and the level of intensity to use for my goals, and what are the primary muscles that it works, and this was enough to help me put on muscle and increase my strength.

You know what occurred to me the other day? I was thinking about all the books I've looked through at the bookstore about how to change your body, build a better physique, etc and they always just stick with practical, fundamental advice on how to eat right and incorporate exercise into your life. And people have used these sorts of resources for years and years and have, in my cases, dramatically changed their lives and the way they look.

Now don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing AGAINST learning as much as you can about the human body and using this knowledge to make you a better trainer. I'm just gathering thoughts and opinions on the subject.

[KyleAaron]

Sure - coz there's more important things that time could be spent on.

And, not either/or.

[jonmd123]

You see, and that brings up another point: It seems that our ideas about things are constantly changing. What was gospel yesterday is bro science today. You mention the bit about eating carbs before working out, and what is interesting about that is that just yesterday I was reading in the NSCA text and it seemed to indicate that this is exactly right--if you eat carbs before you work out your body will turn to it first for energy. But, as you are seeming to point out here, there is plenty of evidence that this isn't really the case at all.

Another thing I read--and I wish I could find the exact quote--seemed to say that heart rate influences whether or not the body turns to carbs or fat for energy: That lower intensity aerobic exercise prefers to use fat for energy, while higher intensity aerobic exercise will go for the carbs first. But this is of course directly contradicted by other sources and evidence that shows exercises like spints are great for burning fat.

It seems like every day there is some new truth that totally contradicts something about which we previously said, "Yes, this is reality." And there is also some study to back it up.

For this reason, I have just always stuck purely to the fundamentals. If you want to lose weight, eat less than your body burns and exercise in a manner than will help you burn more calories and maintain muscle. If you want to build muscle, eat more than your body burns, consume enough protein, and lift with intensity.

Of course that is simplified, but it seems like once we get outside of this pure core of truth, we are getting into theories that may be widely accepted today but disproven tomorrow.

That's where you're wrong. The science has not changed, people have distorted the science to sell their latest weight loss pill. You ever notice that the only people that come up with "groundbreaking" research are the people that trying to sell you something?

This is the exact reason why you need to know the science. You need to be able to decipher what's the truth and what's snake oil. From your last post it appears you don't understand the science and that you are reading too much Muscle and Fitness.

[WoofieNugget]

You need to be able to decipher what's the truth and what's snack oil.

I read that snack oil will help you lose ten pounds in two days. Much better than snake oil. Believe it. There was a double bland study done on snackoil.com.

[jonmd123]

I read that snack oil will help you lose ten pounds in two days. Much better than snake oil. Believe it. There was a double bland study done on snackoil.com.

Snack oil is much better for you. It's unsaturated so it won't make you fat.

[soren_xavier]

That's where you're wrong. The science has not changed, people have distorted the science to sell their latest weight loss pill. You ever notice that the only people that come up with "groundbreaking" research are the people that trying to sell you something?

This is the exact reason why you need to know the science. You need to be able to decipher what's the truth and what's snake oil. From your last post it appears you don't understand the science and that you are reading too much Muscle and Fitness.

Well one thing I can tell you is that trainers aren't scientists. They have to get their information second hand from the research that scientists are doing. So you're only as good as your source.

Even in the NSCA text there's instance after instance after instance where it says that something SEEMS to be the case according to X group of studies but that Y group of studies don't support these conclusions. When this is the case, how can you know what to believe?

I think the whole argument about starvation mode is the perfect example. 15 years ago it was pretty much taken for granted that this was a real danger; now some people go so far as to call it a myth. I have seen well reasoned reports on the subject, both of which reference legitimate studies that come to different conclusions on the topic.

The low carb craze is another example. I have seen arguments, backed up by studies, that low carb diets are superior for fat burning that other diets. But I have also seen reports, again backed up by studies (that is, by the science), that suggest a balanced diet is just as effective.

Which really brings up another example: in the 80s and 90s, fats were the real enemy in the war against bodyfat. In the 00s, it was carbs. Now it's just calories.

So again, not being a scientist myself actually doing the studies (again, no trainer is in fact), how can I know what to trust, what to believe, what conclusions to draw? I'm sure I'm not the only one who realizes it's a land of confusion.

[rdferguson]

You see, and that brings up another point: It seems that our ideas about things are constantly changing. What was gospel yesterday is bro science today. You mention the bit about eating carbs before working out, and what is interesting about that is that just yesterday I was reading in the NSCA text and it seemed to indicate that this is exactly right--if you eat carbs before you work out your body will turn to it first for energy. But, as you are seeming to point out here, there is plenty of evidence that this isn't really the case at all.

Another thing I read--and I wish I could find the exact quote--seemed to say that heart rate influences whether or not the body turns to carbs or fat for energy: That lower intensity aerobic exercise prefers to use fat for energy, while higher intensity aerobic exercise will go for the carbs first. But this is of course directly contradicted by other sources and evidence that shows exercises like spints are great for burning fat.

It seems like every day there is some new truth that totally contradicts something about which we previously said, "Yes, this is reality." And there is also some study to back it up.

For this reason, I have just always stuck purely to the fundamentals. If you want to lose weight, eat less than your body burns and exercise in a manner than will help you burn more calories and maintain muscle. If you want to build muscle, eat more than your body burns, consume enough protein, and lift with intensity.

Of course that is simplified, but it seems like once we get outside of this pure core of truth, we are getting into theories that may be widely accepted today but disproven tomorrow.

I personally couldn't care less, from a fat loss POV, whether or not this is true. If your body uses the last carbs you ate for energy when you train, and you would have eaten them anyway, then that's part of what's contributing to all your excess body fat suddenly removed from the equation. You can either lose body fat by using fat right now, or you can lose it by preventing food from becoming it in the first place. The explanation I just gave is such a crude explanation as to be almost wrong physiologically, but in practice it works out that way -- create a calorie deficit and you'll lose fat, whether you create that deficit by actively expending fat or by removing the stuff that's sustaining the fat.

From a training/performance POV, this stuff does matter, though, and getting your pre-workout nutrition correct (for your body) will enable you to optimise your training, while getting it wrong will limit you in some way (in my experience, this can range anywhere from lifting slightly less than you should be able to, through to getting 15min and falling unconscious -- fortunately, I've only induced this extreme outcome on myself, and it's caused me to be cautious with clients in ways that I previously thought didn't matter that much).

The evidence that sprints, for example, are good for fat loss isn't based on that style of training directly using lots of fat for energy (at least, not to my knowledge). Again, it comes back to calories in vs calories out. There's also evidence that high intensity training is good at maintaining your metabolism, while low intensity training reduces your over-all metabolic rate (or something like that), so burning the same amount of energy in an intense training session vs a light training session may not have any immediate difference, but the latter may require more frequent reductions in calorie consumption due to more frequent plateaus. At least, that's to the best of my understanding.

[rdferguson]

There is definitely a limit to how useful these details will be for your real world applications.
But... they have to fill a book, they have to sell a book - its really that simple. Jobs for the boys. You might as well join them, do the best you can don't try to change the world. If you have to to waste some time learning irrelevant info, consider it the cost of doing business.



Sure - coz there's more important things that time could be spent on.

That doesn't mean you'll be a worse trainer for having a deeper understanding of exercise science. That means that you could be even better still if you also develop deep knowledge and understanding in other areas that contribute to being a good trainer.

[jkdwarrior]

Let's flip the question around:

Do you think that having a deeper understanding of exercise physiology and physics will make you a worse trainer?

physiology and anatomy are import to know as a trainer as well as body mechanics but physics not so much.... you better off learning bout business, sales and marketing than physics when it comes to useful knowledge in the fitness industry.... but you need to know it to get certified

[WoofieNugget]

physiology and anatomy are import to know as a trainer as well as body mechanics but physics not so much.... you better off learning bout business, sales and marketing than physics when it comes to useful knowledge in the fitness industry.... but you need to know it to get certified

Not sure if serious...pretty much everything to do with force and what you're applying to the body with weights comes from physics. If you don't understand that then you have no deeper understanding of things like momentum, inertia, angles, moment arms, etc.

I agree you need to learn about business stuff, but one should not be neglected for the other unless you just want to be a good salesperson.

[jkdwarrior]

Not sure if serious...pretty much everything to do with force and what you're applying to the body with weights comes from physics. If you don't understand that then you have no deeper understanding of things like momentum, inertia, angles, moment arms, etc.

I agree you need to learn about business stuff, but one should not be neglected for the other unless you just want to be a good salesperson.

I was talking bout the formulas momentum inertia ect is what I was refering to when I said body mechanics

[KyleAaron]

This reminds me of the thread where the person asks what's the cheapest and fastest certification.

It's important to set low professional standards for yourself, it sets you up for a long and successful career.

[soren_xavier]

This reminds me of the thread where the person asks what's the cheapest and fastest certification.

It's important to set low professional standards for yourself, it sets you up for a long and successful career.

In all my time lurking on this board I've noticed that you consistently give the least helpful replies. I've also noticed that you apparently think you know everything about everything.

[KyleAaron]

I hope I didn't hurt your feelings. If I did, that's what the ignore function is for.

[JoeCannonMSCSCS]

It really depends on who your client is. If you are training "sheldon cooper" (Big Bang Theory), I go as deep into the science as that person wants. Medical professionals tend to take trainers more seriously when they know that we know the science. This is important as they are in a position to send us clients.

If you are training somebody who, you feel will be overwhelmed with the science, then less is probable more with this person. Use your instincts and listen to their questions and how they phrase their questions. this will often give you valuable insights.

As you train more people and get experience, this will become much easier for you.
Joe

[Ronin4help]

Try not to take yourself or the profession too seriously. Most clients don't want to learn a bunch of scientific terms and explanations, they just want to pay, show up and get fit.

[cheerleader0720]

Personally, I find a lot of the first 4 chapters of the book to be difficult to understand and it almost seems like it was written for someone who already has a solid grounding in exercise science. I wish they would start with the very basics but it seems almost like they jump into the middle.

I'm currently studying for my exam, too. I had the same issue that you mentioned above while studying for the ACSM exam. The book is written on such a level that it's hard for a beginner to understand. It would introduce words without giving the definition, and then when I would look up the definition, I'd have to look up the definition of a word that was in the FIRST definition, just to understand it!

I am still planning to go for my ACSM certificate eventually, but for now I switched to ISSA. In my opinion, the book is so, so much easier to understand. It doesn't jump around; it introduces words with their definitions, and it is written on a level a beginner can understand.

I'm sure you picked your cert. for a reason, but if I could offer you any advice, it would be to buy the ISSA book to study as a foundation, and then go on to your organization's book. You can always still take the test you want, but I really think the ISSA book will help you "get it" if you're having trouble. It has really helped me. Good luck!

[soren_xavier]

^^^ Thanks for the info. I still haven't had the chance to see the textbook for ISSA but I have heard a lot of very interesting things about their program and I'm pretty intrigued by it. I'm shooting to get certified through the NSCA at the beginning of March so I'm pushing through that book as fast as possible, but I'm interested enough in the ISSA's curriculum that I just might order their study kit and try to pick up their cert as well. Some gyms pay you more if you have multiple certifications anyway.

[BFJ]

I'm studying to for the NSCA-CPT and it made me wonder how deep most trainers go in their own knowledge of the more complicated scientific concepts.

Personally, I find a lot of the first 4 chapters of the book to be difficult to understand and it almost seems like it was written for someone who already has a solid grounding in exercise science. I wish they would start with the very basics but it seems almost like they jump into the middle.

The interesting thing is that, according to the NSCA's exam handbook, almost none of the test actually covers these advanced scientific concepts (like the phos****en energy system or how to measure linear kinetic energy), focusing instead on practical knowledge like program design and proper exercise form.

Personally, to be honest, while I do find some of this serious scientific information interesting, I can't say it's really changed the way that I personally train myself or would have much bearing on how I train someone else. Nor do I really feel like it's necessary to know in order to have a strong understanding of how to go about exercising in a safe and effective way. It seems to me, for instance, that the important thing to know is that you have to create an energy deficit in order to burn fat and that knowing the interior process of how exactly the body goes about this task is more along the lines of "interesting information" rather than essential information.

So what's everyone's take on this? Do you personally delve deeply into the underlying science? How important do you think this is to being a successful trainer?

i passed the exam in 2006 and think you're right it's more heavily focussed on practical stuff than science. wanting to give people a balance of info - science, but then what the heck it means in the real world is the reason i started my podcast MUSCLE - Science and Application http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/m...on/id795854884. At the end of the day, I would say it's not all that important to being a good personal trainer - real key is making a connection with each client, learning what makes them tick and adjusting everything accordingly. Good summary of the reality of what's important in being successful as a personal trainer is in this vid from Chris Lavado http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlXwflkyZX8.

and also DUDE! - just noticed you're from SLC, i also live in SLC. pm me if you're going to the NSCA's rocky mountain regional conference this weekend in denver - looks like great program.

[JoeCannonMSCSCS]

When I took it - in the late 90s -I found it was very realistic in the types of info you would run into as a trainer. In other words, youre more likely to be asked about blood pressure, than the sarcoplasmic reticulum. Id say its good to know the science but focus on the types of information that you are likely to run into while working in a gym or on your own as a trainer.
joe