Pricing

[timk81]

A - 1 to 1 training session £15
B - 1 to 1 training session with nutritional guidance £20
C - 1 to 1 training session with nutritional guidance and text or email contact for motivation and updates. £30

Initial consultation for measurements, photos and talk about background and why they really want to train.

I've been meaning to think this all out but its time to advertise now.

[ILoveTrance]

erm id give the guidance for free, while you train the person. Then for more detailed info. (Ex diet plan) id charge...

[timk81]

erm id give the guidance for free, while you train the person. Then for more detailed info. (Ex diet plan) id charge...

I'm going by a strategy I've read about in an excellent book with was backed up by KyleAaron. In it the client doesn't want the basic package normally and as such is enticed to B. I'm not qualified to give meal plans. I've seen another strategy used by precision nutrition where you work on habits.
A big part of me says my time is valuable. I have a full time job and a family so free consultations seem a stretch. Plus, I've found if people don't have a financial value to their time they can take the proverbial.

[WoofieNugget]

Are you expecting people to only buy one session? I'm just curious since you seem to be basing it on that concept.

Personally I'd lay our a pricing scheme with monthly rates rather than per session amounts. It gets rid of the people who will expect to have an entire program designed for them in one session, which is silly to do for people. Maybe an introductory package of 6 sessions which gets you a full program design and nutritional counselling for one of those sessions. Then give people packages based on weekly workouts, for example once a week is x amount per month, twice a week might be a bit cheaper, etc.

Personal example, my rates are $299 per month for one workout a week, $549 for two and $699 for three. I know it looks like big money up front but again, it weeds out and pre-qualifies a lot of people.

[timk81]

Is $75/session a common session price? I'm not daring to question your knowledge base and skills by the way. I wouldn't dare charge that yet cos I don't have much equipment.
I had been thinking of selling packages. I just wrote that at about 19:30 after a big event in work where I had a kid in crisis wrecking his house and I got up at 5am to train myself so I was tired.
I would apply a small discount for packages. In general, does the abc format look ok or would you completely rethink it?

Thank you for the current reply.

[WoofieNugget]

Is $75/session a common session price? I'm not daring to question your knowledge base and skills by the way. I wouldn't dare charge that yet cos I don't have much equipment.
I had been thinking of selling packages. I just wrote that at about 19:30 after a big event in work where I had a kid in crisis wrecking his house and I got up at 5am to train myself so I was tired.
I would apply a small discount for packages. In general, does the abc format look ok or would you completely rethink it?

Thank you for the current reply.

That really depends on marketplace - not sure what the going rate is in Ireland of course. It is common in my city for any experienced skilled trainer. Even at crappy chain gyms here they charge $60-65 an hour and you get a trainer who knows nothing. I'd suggest maybe looking at other trainers' web sites in your country/area who have their prices listed and see what the going rate is, then set yours accordingly. When I first went independent I priced myself on the low end only because I never wanted price to be a factor in buying.

[soren_xavier]

Even at crappy chain gyms here they charge $60-65 an hour and you get a trainer who knows nothing.

I always think it's interesting that independent trainers like to talk sh!t on trainers who work out of a chain gym. I work at Gold's and you'd be surprised by how knowledgeable and experienced the trainers there are. This idea that chain gym trainers "know nothing" is a myth, but one that is sadly often repeated.

[WoofieNugget]

I always think it's interesting that independent trainers like to talk sh!t on trainers who work out of a chain gym. I work at Gold's and you'd be surprised by how knowledgeable and experienced the trainers there are. This idea that chain gym trainers "know nothing" is a myth, but one that is sadly often repeated.

You're right - to be fair I probably should have said about 80% of chain gym trainers. Plus, I hardly consider Gold's a chain gym since usually they are franchised - head to a place like 24 Hour, Planet Fitness or GoodLife here in Canada and you will find that about 3/4 of their staff are hardly certified and usually have less than two years of experience. It's buyer beware, and I'm constantly shocked at the amount of people who just blindly accept whatever trainer is given to them without vetting them properly first.

[soren_xavier]

You're right - to be fair I probably should have said about 80% of chain gym trainers. Plus, I hardly consider Gold's a chain gym since usually they are franchised - head to a place like 24 Hour, Planet Fitness or GoodLife here in Canada and you will find that about 3/4 of their staff are hardly certified and usually have less than two years of experience. It's buyer beware, and I'm constantly shocked at the amount of people who just blindly accept whatever trainer is given to them without vetting them properly first.

Less than two years of experience may be the norm at some chain gyms, but I still don't think that means they're bad trainers. Everyone has to start somewhere. Will they get better as they gain more experience? Of course. But even though I'm sure you regard yourself as a great trainer, there was still a time when it was your first day, first month and first year on the job. That didn't mean you were a "bad" trainer, it just meant that you had some things to learn.

Really though, is training rocket science? While it may get a little complex once you start dealing with special populations, for generally healthy people training basically consists of putting together an effective program, showing them how to do the exercises, hanging out with them and encouraging them while they do it, giving them basic nutrition info, and chiming in on occasion outside of the gym to make sure they're staying on track.

None of these things are hard and I'm not sure why a lot of trainers pretend like they are. I assume it's an ego thing.

[KyleAaron]

It goes a bit beyond that, soren, if you want at all remarkable results. Have you ever had a woman go from never having deadlifted to deadlifting 100kg? Have you ever had a man go from not being able to run 5km without stopping to doing it in under 25 minutes? Had a guy go from 30kg overweight to a healthy bodyweight?

The basics for newbie gains of 6-12 weeks aren't hard. Past that it's hard.

[WoofieNugget]

Really though, is training rocket science? While it may get a little complex once you start dealing with special populations, for generally healthy people training basically consists of putting together an effective program, showing them how to do the exercises, hanging out with them and encouraging them while they do it, giving them basic nutrition info, and chiming in on occasion outside of the gym to make sure they're staying on track.

None of these things are hard and I'm not sure why a lot of trainers pretend like they are. I assume it's an ego thing.

If you think that's all good training is then in my opinion you definitely have a lot to learn. Training someone is a huge responsibility that way too many trainers don't take seriously at all.

Force is what you're applying to people on a daily basis. If all you do is hang out and program arbitrary movements and rep ranges for your clients then go for it, but that's not what I do. It's closer to rocket science than you realize, and that's part of the problem - most trainers have no concept of the real science behind what they are doing. Trust me, it's not an ego thing. My whole clientele knows that pretty much everything they do when they are with me is planned, scrutinized and assessed before, during and after a movement. That's why they keep coming back and keep moving forward.

[KyleAaron]

One way I like to think of training - and many things - is that it has emergent complexity. The complexity emerges over time. It's like chess, there are only a few different pieces, and the basic moves and rules are very simple and can be written on one page or less, but as you play out those basic moves you find the whole thing becoming more complicated, and as you play one move at a time, people who are experienced and can see ahead will absolutely trounce you.

One study found that intermediate and grandmaster chess players had about the same amount of experience actually playing the game, the difference was that after a match the intermediate just went home and cracked open a beer, the grandmasters went home and looked over their game again, thinking what they could have done differently, studying games of past grandmasters playing them out, and so on. They reflected on their experiences, and engaged in deliberate practice. The people who just showed up and played only reached a certain level. "What's to study? There are only a few moves, it's not rocket science."

[soren_xavier]

It goes a bit beyond that, soren, if you want at all remarkable results. Have you ever had a woman go from never having deadlifted to deadlifting 100kg? Have you ever had a man go from not being able to run 5km without stopping to doing it in under 25 minutes? Had a guy go from 30kg overweight to a healthy bodyweight?

The basics for newbie gains of 6-12 weeks aren't hard. Past that it's hard.

At the end of the day though that still comes down to two things:

1. Keeping the Client Motivated to Push Themselves
2. Effective Program Design

Keeping the client motivated definitely takes some soft skills but I don't know that I'd call it "hard" provided the client has the sufficient desire within themselves to change (and if they don't then the battle is all but lost anyway).

And while there are nuances to program design, there are also guidelines that authorities have put in place to ensure that you actually put together something that's going to work. From exercise selection, to sets, reps, tempo and periodization, any trainer should be able to put together a good routine so long as they follow the "rules."

I have read a lot of material on program design but I believe that if all a trainer had were the chapters in the NSCA's textbook on the subject, then that would be enough to not only develop an effective program for newbies, but also an effective program for the experienced trainee.

[soren_xavier]

Force is what you're applying to people on a daily basis. If all you do is hang out and program arbitrary movements and rep ranges for your clients then go for it, but that's not what I do. It's closer to rocket science than you realize, and that's part of the problem - most trainers have no concept of the real science behind what they are doing.

I guess you missed the word "effective" in my post. Effective has nothing to do with "arbitrary movements and rep ranges." I'd say to see my post above this one for further thoughts, but I will simply say this:

In order to get certified as a trainer, you have to go through material that teaches you how to build a structured, scientific program for a client. Follow the guidelines set forth by an organization like the NSCA or NASM and you should have no problem putting something together that will yield results for your clients. There are reasons these accredited certifying bodies exist: To make sure you are armed with the information you need to walk onto the gym floor and get the job done.

[soren_xavier]

One way I like to think of training - and many things - is that it has emergent complexity. The complexity emerges over time. It's like chess, there are only a few different pieces, and the basic moves and rules are very simple and can be written on one page or less, but as you play out those basic moves you find the whole thing becoming more complicated, and as you play one move at a time, people who are experienced and can see ahead will absolutely trounce you.

One study found that intermediate and grandmaster chess players had about the same amount of experience actually playing the game, the difference was that after a match the intermediate just went home and cracked open a beer, the grandmasters went home and looked over their game again, thinking what they could have done differently, studying games of past grandmasters playing them out, and so on. They reflected on their experiences, and engaged in deliberate practice. The people who just showed up and played only reached a certain level. "What's to study? There are only a few moves, it's not rocket science."

That's a good analogy and has merit, but I have another one for you:

Consider professional MMA fighters. Some are going to train hard and become champions while others merely become journeymen. But while the journeyman rarely gets a whole lot of respect, that doesn't mean he's not a good fighter. On the contrary, he is solid and competent and will win more often than he loses. He's able to put food on the table and understands "the game," it's just that he's not quite championship material. But while he's not ever going to ascend to the highest levels of the sport, that doesn't mean that he's incompetent or that he can't get the job done or that he doesn't deserve the respect that should be given to a real pro.

I imagine this applies to a lot of trainers as well. Not all are going to be among the best in the world. Many, if not most, are probably going to be an equivalent of the the journeyman in the fighting world. Perhaps they're not the ones to go to if you want elite coaching to win a powerlifting meet or to become a championship bodybuilder. But then again, that's why specialized coaches exist for these sorts of things. Personal training by and large is really about taking out-of-shape members of the general population and helping the get in shape. It's about taking that skinny guy with no lifting experience and helping him add some muscle and it's about taking that overweight soccer mom and helping her drop 20 lbs of fat. I mean, yes, this is a simplification but I assume you see what I'm getting at here.

I see a lot of pettiness and sniping going on in this industry. Trainers just seem to LOVE to talk sh!t on other trainers, like THEY are the only ones who actually know anything. There also seems to be little tolerance for a lack of experience, despite the fact that EVERY trainer had to start somewhere in order to get where they are today. I just wish this community could be more supportive at times rather than destructive.

Does that mean that there are not good trainers in the world? Of course not. Though I suspect the percentage of truly bad trainers is quite small and I also suspect that almost all of those trainers wash out of the industry within months of starting.

[timk81]

Advert

Do you want to get in shape but are too shy to go to a gym? I can provide a quality workout in a private setting.

All prices include a half hour consultation so I can carry out assessments and find out a bit about you.

£90 - 6 sessions with the 5 major lifts
£120 - 6 sessions with more tailored workouts
£150 - 6 sessions with more tailored workout and contact in between to stay on track.


This's the initial advert. I will go on to say about weight loss and getting in shape in later ones. I wanted to keep the first one short, no one wants to read an essay.

[WoofieNugget]

I guess you missed the word "effective" in my post. Effective has nothing to do with "arbitrary movements and rep ranges." I'd say to see my post above this one for further thoughts, but I will simply say this:

In order to get certified as a trainer, you have to go through material that teaches you how to build a structured, scientific program for a client. Follow the guidelines set forth by an organization like the NSCA or NASM and you should have no problem putting something together that will yield results for your clients. There are reasons these accredited certifying bodies exist: To make sure you are armed with the information you need to walk onto the gym floor and get the job done.

Let's be honest - the reason those accredited certifying bodies exist is to make money. They essentially all teach the same information slightly altered or coming at things from a different perspective, ie NSCA is more fundamental lifting and NASM is more corrective exercise based but when it comes down to it, a barbell is a barbell and a squat is a squat. It's how it is applied to the individual, how fast, how much and how it is loaded that can make a huge difference to the person getting trained.

My issue isn't with other trainers generally, although it irks me when I see some doing what they think is their job and they are being lazy, not focused, doing the same workout with all of their clients and never getting any more education - ie 80% of chain gym trainers. My issue is with the industry as a whole that allows something as complex as exercise to be taught and applied to regular people by trainers who have taken an online course, read a textbook and passed an exam virtually without ever having laid their hands on another person (which both NSCA and NASM do). There should be an apprenticeship program, just like in trades or physio or accounting or basically any other profession - but then gym owners wouldn't make as much money because they couldn't flood their gym floors with salespeople who know little to nothing about the actual methodology behind what they are doing to people.

[KyleAaron]

At the end of the day though that still comes down to two things:

1. Keeping the Client Motivated to Push Themselves
2. Effective Program Design

You missed, "teach correct movement." This is by no means a trivial omission.

All these things require adjusting as you go. The mood, food and sleep of the client before this particular session and over time, what motivates and what puts them off, their tolerance for a higher workload vs the minimum they need to avoid detraining, their individual weaknesses and what exercise will address those, and so on and so forth. And teaching correct movement. Dan Green has his girlfriend film each set and then goes and looks at it to see what he can do better - and finds something each time. If someone who squats 800lbs can find something to correct in each and every set, then certainly we should be able to find something with our clients.

This requires constant attention and learning from us.

And while there are nuances to program design, there are also guidelines that authorities have put in place to ensure that you actually put together something that's going to work.

Yes but they're wrong.

That's a good analogy and has merit, but I have another one for you:

Consider professional MMA fighters. Some are going to train hard and become champions while others merely become journeymen. But while the journeyman rarely gets a whole lot of respect, that doesn't mean he's not a good fighter. On the contrary, he is solid and competent and will win more often than he loses. He's able to put food on the table and understands "the game," it's just that he's not quite championship material. But while he's not ever going to ascend to the highest levels of the sport, that doesn't mean that he's incompetent or that he can't get the job done or that he doesn't deserve the respect that should be given to a real pro.

I imagine this applies to a lot of trainers as well.

Certainly. But here's two things.

Firstly, the typical journeyman MMA fighter who actually makes enough money to feed his family has put in a lot more training and learning than the typical personal trainer.

Secondly, whatever the fighter's level, if they're not the best it's not because they're not trying to be. They're all trying to get better.

Trainers just seem to LOVE to talk sh!t on other trainers, like THEY are the only ones who actually know anything.

I view trainers and their ability the same way I view clients and their lifts, running speed or whatever. I don't give a damn what you can do, I only care that you're trying to get better. You may or may not actually be getting better, all sorts of things can stand in your way. The point is you should be trying. If you're not even trying to get better then I have no interest in dealing with you.

The fitness industry is like hospitality, it has a low threshold to entry and a lot of part-time casuals doing it while on their way to a "real" job. The "care factor" as we Aussies call it, it's just not there. Thus, most are not trying to get better. That's why most are not very good.

We're dealing with people's bodies, with their health, their hopes and dreams, and being paid money for it. We should take it seriously and do the best job we can. We can't all be great, but we can all try to be better.

[WoofieNugget]

Advert

Do you want to get in shape but are too shy to go to a gym? I can provide a quality workout in a private setting.

All prices include a half hour consultation so I can carry out assessments and find out a bit about you.

£90 - 6 sessions with the 5 major lifts
£120 - 6 sessions with more tailored workouts
£150 - 6 sessions with more tailored workout and contact in between to stay on track.


This's the initial advert. I will go on to say about weight loss and getting in shape in later ones. I wanted to keep the first one short, no one wants to read an essay.

To get back to the original post...

I'd definitely omit the words "5 major lifts". Most people aren't going to have any clue what that means, and many women will be scared of it because they think you're going to hulk them out. Really, I'd avoid pricing things based on service level - all clients should receive the same level of service regardless of price, but for example 90 pounds might be six session with program design, 120 might be the same but adding in nutrition advice, 150 might be same as 120 but add access to a group class you run once a week for VIP's. More value for more dollar, not less service for less money.

[soren_xavier]

Let's be honest - the reason those accredited certifying bodies exist is to make money. They essentially all teach the same information slightly altered or coming at things from a different perspective, ie NSCA is more fundamental lifting and NASM is more corrective exercise based but when it comes down to it, a barbell is a barbell and a squat is a squat. It's how it is applied to the individual, how fast, how much and how it is loaded that can make a huge difference to the person getting trained.

Yeah, that's true. They want to make money. I don't think that has to mean that they don't actually care about the job they're doing though. I think the individuals who are running the organization actually put effort into putting the best certification program together that they can.

I mean, just consider this: YOU are in this business to make money (and from your post earlier, you apparently charge a LOT of it for people to train with you). That doesn't mean that you don't actually care about your clients and want them to get good results, though.

My issue isn't with other trainers generally, although it irks me when I see some doing what they think is their job and they are being lazy, not focused, doing the same workout with all of their clients and never getting any more education - ie 80% of chain gym trainers. My issue is with the industry as a whole that allows something as complex as exercise to be taught and applied to regular people by trainers who have taken an online course, read a textbook and passed an exam virtually without ever having laid their hands on another person (which both NSCA and NASM do). There should be an apprenticeship program, just like in trades or physio or accounting or basically any other profession - but then gym owners wouldn't make as much money because they couldn't flood their gym floors with salespeople who know little to nothing about the actual methodology behind what they are doing to people.

I can see that. Maybe that would be better. I can see how the system would inevitable produce some poor trainers who really don't know what they're doing. What I can tell you though is that every gym that I know of makes you shadow with other trainers for at least a short period of time after getting hired on. So that's something.

[doughnut91]

To get back to the original post...

I'd definitely omit the words "5 major lifts". Most people aren't going to have any clue what that means, and many women will be scared of it because they think you're going to hulk them out. Really, I'd avoid pricing things based on service level - all clients should receive the same level of service regardless of price, but for example 90 pounds might be six session with program design, 120 might be the same but adding in nutrition advice, 150 might be same as 120 but add access to a group class you run once a week for VIP's. More value for more dollar, not less service for less money.

Completely agree with this post.

Most who need PT will have no clue on what '5 major lifts' means, and will likely be scared off by it.

Even though you'll be aiming to sell the bigger packages, you should make each package look as attractive as possible. So, adding 'with more tailored workouts' makes the first one sound even worse.

I also believe that it's wise to make out-of-hours contact available to all clients, regardless of what package they've purchased. Otherwise it's a bit of a 'I'll train you but outside of that hour you cannot contact me' type deal. Just my two cents.

[soren_xavier]

You missed, "teach correct movement." This is by no means a trivial omission.

Well that was really covered in my earlier post when I said, "Show them how to do the exercises." And of course I mean show them how to CORRECTLY do them.

All these things require adjusting as you go. The mood, food and sleep of the client before this particular session and over time, what motivates and what puts them off, their tolerance for a higher workload vs the minimum they need to avoid detraining, their individual weaknesses and what exercise will address those, and so on and so forth.

Yeah, for sure. This is really getting into the psychology of individual clients, though. I think understanding these sorts of things comes naturally after working with any particularly person for a little while.

And teaching correct movement. Dan Green has his girlfriend film each set and then goes and looks at it to see what he can do better - and finds something each time. If someone who squats 800lbs can find something to correct in each and every set, then certainly we should be able to find something with our clients.

If anything that just proves that no one--not even champions--lift with absolutely perfect form. So we should probably take a little solace in the fact that even if our clients are off just a little bit--or even if we ourselves are a little bit off with the form in our own training--results will still come.

Every lift has certain guidelines: stance, hand placement, things like keeping your back straight and not swinging the weight, the motion that the bar should take through the air, etc. Again, these things aren't that hard to learn or to each others. And as long as you follow the guidelines then you should end up with something that will be safe and that will produce results (even if it's not executed with absolute perfection).

All I'm really saying is let's not turn a legitimately simple movement like the bench press into some complex voodoo that requires years of education to learn and to teach.

Yes but they're wrong.

How so? I'm not personally familiar with the details of the OPT model, but I know successful trainers who use it. And I can tell you that the NSCA's material on programming is simply solid, proven, fundamental stuff.

Can you give some specific examples of how following the NSCA's guidelines on programming will fail to yield results?

Certainly. But here's two things.

Firstly, the typical journeyman MMA fighter who actually makes enough money to feed his family has put in a lot more training and learning than the typical personal trainer.

Secondly, whatever the fighter's level, if they're not the best it's not because they're not trying to be. They're all trying to get better.

Yeah, I think that's true.

I view trainers and their ability the same way I view clients and their lifts, running speed or whatever. I don't give a damn what you can do, I only care that you're trying to get better. You may or may not actually be getting better, all sorts of things can stand in your way. The point is you should be trying. If you're not even trying to get better then I have no interest in dealing with you.

That sounds fair to me. I can tell you that all of the trainers I work with are serious about it and continue to educate themselves.

The fitness industry is like hospitality, it has a low threshold to entry and a lot of part-time casuals doing it while on their way to a "real" job. The "care factor" as we Aussies call it, it's just not there. Thus, most are not trying to get better. That's why most are not very good.

We're dealing with people's bodies, with their health, their hopes and dreams, and being paid money for it. We should take it seriously and do the best job we can. We can't all be great, but we can all try to be better.

I agree with that.

I am still a new trainer but one thing I will say though is that at the end of the day whether the client gets the results they want largely depends on the client. We can show them the way but they have to really walk the path. I'm not sure how it's done at your gym, but at Gold's most of the clients only do one 30 minute session per week with the trainer. Some do two or three times a week, but it's less common.

Now, don't get me wrong, we write up a full program for them but we're only there physically with them for 30 minutes a week in a lot of cases so they're on their own for a lot of it. And many, despite having paid the money, just are not willing to be fully compliant. I try to get my clients to not only come in 3+ times a week to work their program (this is probably the EASIEST part, but they still tend to slack a lot) but I also try to get them to take before pictures, track their weight and measurements, track their cals and protein and send their numbers to me every night, etc and it's like pulling teeth. Not only that but they seem to have little appreciation for the amount of (unpaid) time I spend doing things for them that I'm under no contractual obligation to actually do. I mean, I'm sitting their thinking "I'M TRYING TO HELP YOU!!!" and they're acting almost more like they're annoyed that I'm asking them to do something than appreciative of the fact that I'm showing them how to achieve their goals.

So results is a two-way street. It not only takes a good trainer but also a willing client.

[soren_xavier]

I also believe that it's wise to make out-of-hours contact available to all clients, regardless of what package they've purchased. Otherwise it's a bit of a 'I'll train you but outside of that hour you cannot contact me' type deal. Just my two cents.

Agreed. I thought that sounded really bad.

I actually think that the actual time that's spent in the gym is just a small fraction of what training a client is all about. There's also motivation/encouragement and education. I think even a basic PT package should include all these things.

[WoofieNugget]

I am still a new trainer but one thing I will say though is that at the end of the day whether the client gets the results they want largely depends on the client. We can show them the way but they have to really walk the path. I'm not sure how it's done at your gym, but at Gold's most of the clients only do one 30 minute session per week with the trainer. Some do two or three times a week, but it's less common.

Now, don't get me wrong, with write up a full program for them but we're only there physically with them for 30 minutes a week in a lot of cases so they're on their own for a lot of it. And many, despite having paid the money, just are not willing to be full compliant. I try to get my clients to not only come in 3+ times a week to work their program (this is probably the EASIEST part, but they still tend to slack a lot) but I also try to get them to take before pictures, track their weight and measurements, track their cals and protein and send their numbers to me every night, etc and it's like pulling teeth. Not only that but they seem to have little appreciation for the amount of (unpaid) time I spend doing things for them that I'm under no contractual obligation to actually do. I mean, I'm sitting their thinking "I'M TRYING TO HELP YOU!!!" and they're acting almost more like they're annoyed that I'm asking them to do something than appreciative of the fact that I'm showing them how to achieve their goals.

So results is a two-way street. It not only takes a good trainer but also a willing client.

I definitely agree with this. I'm very lucky I can choose who I want to work with and I realize that many trainers don't have that luxury. However, even for the most committed people I always be very clear - their results have very little to do with me at the end of the day. I am simply a guide and a coach for about 1% of their week. The rest of the time they have a choice in terms of how they eat, sleep, exercise and move towards whatever they want to do physically. I also have no patience for people who claim to want something and then over time show me no real desire to get there.

I actually fired a client this past Saturday because she started with me two months ago, has seen me only three times (out of what was supposed to be eight) and even though she had a clear program and homework chose to do it barely once a week, always coming up with excuses. She can waste someone else's time.

[Endevorforever]

Yeah, that's true. They want to make money. I don't think that has to mean that they don't actually care about the job they're doing though. I think the individuals who are running the organization actually put effort into putting the best certification program together that they can.

I mean, just consider this: YOU are in this business to make money (and from your post earlier, you apparently charge a LOT of it for people to train with you). That doesn't mean that you don't actually care about your clients and want them to get good results, though.




I can see that. Maybe that would be better. I can see how the system would inevitable produce some poor trainers who really don't know what they're doing. What I can tell you though is that every gym that I know of makes you shadow with other trainers for at least a short period of time after getting hired on. So that's something.

Well I think this entire forum misses the point of certifications. They are just the bare minimum, and it is expected that you purchase CEUs. Most people don't because no one is forcing them to, but there is some very good information there that would make some trainers more effective. Yes you have to start some where, but you have to remember the 80% are not looking for a long term career as a trainer, so they never invest in becoming a better trainer. In other words, it is the gym industry's fault for not treating personal training seriously and therefore, personal trainers would do better separating from chain gyms.

[Endevorforever]

Advert

Do you want to get in shape but are too shy to go to a gym? I can provide a quality workout in a private setting.

All prices include a half hour consultation so I can carry out assessments and find out a bit about you.

£90 - 6 sessions with the 5 major lifts
£120 - 6 sessions with more tailored workouts
£150 - 6 sessions with more tailored workout and contact in between to stay on track.


This's the initial advert. I will go on to say about weight loss and getting in shape in later ones. I wanted to keep the first one short, no one wants to read an essay.

The problem with your pricing is that you do not account for actul training. selling someone a a block of time is going to come back to bite you. Woofie has a good idea of just charging monthly for the fitness program. Sessions are for chain gyms, the monthly rate or large training package helps independent trainers.

[soren_xavier]

. . . personal trainers would do better separating from chain gyms.

I'd like to do that as soon as possible but I'm not entirely sure how to go about it. Everything from finding a gym to train out of to marketing and getting clients is kind of a mystery to me.

[KyleAaron]

If anything that just proves that no one--not even champions--lift with absolutely perfect form. So we should probably take a little solace in the fact that even if our clients are off just a little bit--or even if we ourselves are a little bit off with the form in our own training--results will still come.

Or maybe like Dan Green we could realise that while things are never going to be perfect, we should try to make them better. "But champions aren't perfect" isn't an excuse for being a sloppy lazy trainer. CORRECT THEM.

Can you give some specific examples of how following the NSCA's guidelines on programming will fail to yield results?

EVERYTHING gives results if you put enough time and effort into it. The question is: what's optimal?

The NSCA guidelines are essentially the same as the ACSM guidelines. These for beginners as 2-3 sets (ACSM says just 1 is fine) of 8-12 repetitions at 60-70% of 1 rep maximum.

There are a number of issues with this. The first is that we are told beginners should not do heavy low reps because of the risk of injury. How then are we to test their 1RM? We must surmise it from their doing 10 reps or so. This will always be rough, especially considering than a 1RM will be higher compared to a 10RM in leg press than in squat, in squat than in single-leg squat, and so on, and how do you get 1RM for pushups? And the 1RM will be closer to the 10RM for women, and older people, and - did you guess it? - beginners. And so on. In other words, we're basing our programming on a guess.

Secondly, beginners don't have a 1RM - or 10RM, or any other rep maximum. If you ask them to do 3 sets, they will quite literally be stronger on their 2nd set than their first, and on their 3rd than their 2nd. This is because they are - provided you are willing to teach them - learning a new movement. And this new movement will be stronger after the first time they try it. Their 1RM went up from your testing their 1RM! So we're basing our programming on a guess which is wrong.

Thirdly, they tell us that form is important early on. But if you have a weight that genuinely challenges you, then 3-5 of those 8-12 reps will be crap. We need lower reps than that, or else they're practicing doing it wrong. This does not bother the people at the "authorities" since they get people to do leg extensions and machine chest press, and you have to try really hard to fck those up. But those of us coaching more useful exercises will find that something like 3-7 reps is a more useful range.

They recommend rep ranges of 12-15 for older people. But anyone who has actually trained older people and got a training effect past the first 6-12 weeks of newbie gains will know that they have a low tolerance to high training volume. They get worn out and show up with tendonitis and the like.

People will get results if they follow these guidelines - as much as is possible to do so, anyway. But they'll get better and quicker results if they do something else.

There's lots of stuff like that. It's just a bunch of idiots who never trained anyone. They probably think these movements aren't that hard, either. I had two guys squatting 1.5x their bodyweight for their work sets at 6 o'clock this morning, guess what, they needed correction. I had to yell, because your brain doesn't work properly with that weight on your back, most stop at 4 reps and ask plaintively, "is that 5?" or at 5 they get themselves ready for another and I tell them to stop - they can't even count to 5. Your brain doesn't work with a big weight on your back.

And here, dear readers, we see illustrated why some trainers charge more, and some less. Before thinking about price, think about creating value.

[Endevorforever]

I'd like to do that as soon as possible but I'm not entirely sure how to go about it. Everything from finding a gym to train out of to marketing and getting clients is kind of a mystery to me.

No its not. You use the same tactics you use in the gym. Except, you are the gym now. You set your prices and area of operation, build a simple web site, get some form of advertisment (Ad words, flyers, T-shirts, Set up a 5k or similar event), you talk to people where you find them with the goal of a consultation, not a free session. The ISSA book called: "Fiscal Fitness" tells you how to do it. Save up some money before you go on your own though.

[soren_xavier]

Or maybe like Dan Green we could realise that while things are never going to be perfect, we should try to make them better. "But champions aren't perfect" isn't an excuse for being a sloppy lazy trainer. CORRECT THEM.

I'm not saying we shouldn't correct people who are obviously doing things wrong. I'm just pointing out that if Dan Green can find problems with his own form, then if we ourselves scrutinized our own form we would probably find problems. So I guess it's a good thing that 100% perfect form isn't required to be safe and progress.

EVERYTHING gives results if you put enough time and effort into it. The question is: what's optimal?

The NSCA guidelines are essentially the same as the ACSM guidelines. These for beginners as 2-3 sets (ACSM says just 1 is fine) of 8-12 repetitions at 60-70% of 1 rep maximum.

Etc.

Most of the issues you bring up honestly seem like smaller details to me that are arguable. I tend to start beginners at 8 reps because I think it's the perfect compromise between building strength and building muscle, and the goal is typically to do both. But if someone wants to start them at 10 or more to use a lighter weight that they can control better to learn the motion of the exercise and get more practice with it, then that's fine with me. I really don't think that beginners should immediately jump into 5 reps or lower. They need some experience actually lifting weights first. Not only does this decrease the chance of them accidentally hurting themselves but it also builds their confidence. Even if beginners are CAPABLE of lifting large amounts of weight from the get-go most of the ones that I've trained are simply not psychologically comfortable with doing that yet.

But that's honestly a small detail. Beginners aren't beginners for long (I consider a true beginner as someone with 4 weeks or less of actual regimented training) and soon become ready for more advanced exercise.

As for your comments on estimating the 1RM, I find 1RM estimation to be useful but it IS an estimation. At the end of the day, is it really all that important? I trainer for YEARS without being able to test my 1RM because I never had a spotter. Why get bogged down in the "Oh yeah, I should be doing this lift with such-and-such percent of my 1 RM"? I just test my clients to find a weight that they can do for about the target number of reps but not more than a rep or so beyond. And that's the weight that we go with. And as they get stronger, the weight increases.

Instead of getting bogged down in this one specific detail or that specific detail, I'd suggest re-reading the chapters in the NSCA's textbook "Resistance Training Program Design" and "Resistance Training for Client's Who Are Athletes."

Everything is there from setting up a beginner's program to periodization for experienced lifters.