Under the bar experience

Hanley

Simple question, who would you rather listen too?

Someone with multiple degrees/diplomas in training, but looks like they've never lifted in their life.

OR

Someone with no "official" qualifications in the training field but is super fit/extremely muscular/strong/

Obviously a little bit of both would be cool but lets talk polar opposites for the sake of it.

And why would you choose that person?

Kernunos

well i personally would pick the professional trainer. Mostly because i do not want to look like a tank. I play Capoeira so want to stay flexible and toned and piling on the muscle is not for me, the BBer might know a few tricks and have good advice about getting like them but since i am also just really starting out the Personal Trainer would be better off setting you on the right path. Just my 2c.

Hanley

Ok well let me ask you this then... If you wanted to get in shape for Capoeria who would you ask? Someone who's profeicent at it, or a PT who knows nothing about it?

Newaglish

If we're talking polar opposites i'd go with the guy (or gal!) that actually looks like they've done the work themselves.

I mean, if someone has a degree, they probably know what works.

If someone is "built like a tank", they obviously also know what works, but they also have the motivation and the mindset to go along with it, which I actually think is the most important thing. I don't think it really takes all that long to learn what you should be doing in the gym and what you should be eating - it's doing it that's the hard part.

PeakOutput

without sounding like a total suck ass if my current plan does not work in the next month or two i plan on asking you to sort it for me:p so built like a tank it is

Kernunos

hmmm, well the person who is in very good shape but has no 'official' training got that way through trial and error with regard to what works for them. One of the reasons that i would pick the PT is because they would not only know what works, but why it works and if i was just starting out then thats what i would like to know. Thats not to say that i would not be delighted to get advice off someone who has gone through it all before but if i had a choice between 1 session with a PT and 1 with a live-in gym member i would still have to go for the PT.

nesf

I’m not someone with any real experience as a lifter etc but it looks to me like you’re drawing a line between tacit knowledge and formal knowledge (“know how” versus “know why” or “know what”). Personally I think the best course of action would be to approach both and combine the two into something useful.

The hypothetical experienced lifter will have picked up loads of little tricks and tips (possibly subconsciously) over the years from both their own experiences and the experiences of guys they’ve trained with. They know stuff like doing X doesn’t give you Y but (unless they’ve also got an interest in the science of this stuff) usually they couldn’t tell you exactly why this is the case only that it’s true. This is both good and bad in that a lot of it is true but it’s hard to tell how much of it is “true for them” but not true in general if you know what I mean.

The hypothetical personal trainer will have loads of “know why” knowledge. They know how muscles and diets work (or at least side with one theory or another) and could explain at length about how cluster training stimulates the body in this way or how drop sets work because of this or that etc. However, in the above this guy/girl probably hasn’t really lifted big weights so they’ll lack a lot of the little titbits of knowledge that you just won’t find in books and articles.

Personally I think you want to take the best from both and combine the two into something better than either of their opinions taken in isolation. Both are useful, you just need to learn how best to amalgamate the knowledge they can give you.

Hanley

This thread's turning out better than I expected... Some really good reasons as to why people go to PT's that I'd never even considered.

Keep it up!! I'm off to train, I'll post up my thoughts when I get home.

Boru.

I think the way you've pharsed the question is a little loaded and betrays the type of response you want to hear, which is a tad unfair. While I DO get your point - it's looking at from a very one dimentional point of view - specifically that of a "lifter" - for instance I'm not going to ask a huge strong muscular guy like Ronnie Coleman or Dorian Yates to train me for a marathon. Just becasue they have big muscles does not mean they are fit, strong or healthy for that matter.

In fact many of the HUGE big guys displaying what at first appears to be an excellent physique are often plagued by small injuries (or more serious injuries) often as a results of postural imbalances, muscle imbalance and compression damage. Also, and I have tested this, many with incredible physiques aren't funtionally fit and can't use they're muscles as effeciently as the should (generally this is becasue of an over use of isolation exercsies) needed to bring out the muscle.

Mind you all of this is completely biased, becasue I happen to think the majority of bodybuilders, including many professionals are compromising their health and in fact wasting they're time because of an obsession with inefficent, un researched exercsie protocols.

Now on to Personal Trainers - guys like Transform are an excellent example of the perfect trainer - not overly muscular, excellent all round functional fitness with the knowledge to back up and justfiy his training methods. On the other hand he's rare. The majority of trainers (in Ireland at any rate) are out of shape, not becasue they don't know they're stuff (although it'sthe same bull crap I think is outdated and inefficent),but becasue of industry burnout - they pay and the lifestyle for most is awful here. Others are just lazy.

Then again there are other factors to consider - what area is interesting to you personally, how do you define fitness. Is it strength such as the ability to squat 900lbs clean? Then check out Bud Jefferies - he's a fat ass, he doesn't look great - but by God does he know his stuff....



At the end of the day physique tells you VERY little about someone's abilities.And it tells you nothing about they're ability to teach others. A guy could have the best physique in the world but be completley unable to explain or teach it - Like Franco Columbo, awesome physique, made all his students eat yogurt cause that's what he did - they got fat.

It's the same with personal trainers - they can have all the degrees and qualifications in the world, (the only thing they are good for is getting your insurance validated), but if they can't impart that knowledge then what good are they? On the other hand a guy could look like absolute crap and still have the goods and better still be able to impart that.

What it comes down to is not appearance - it's results. Persoanlly I don't care who you are or what you look like, what qualifications you do or do not have if you can teach me someonthing I don't know and help me get the results I want in a safe and effective manner then that's all I care about.

With that in mind can safely say the best coach and trainer I ever had was my mum. She didn't know a god damn thing about exercsie, other than that it was good. She didn't know a god damn thing about nutrition and macro nutrient ratio's, but she knew that too many MacDonlads would make me fat, and that a healthy balanced meal of spuds, veg and meat would do me right. My mum never looked like an athlete, she never had any qualifications, but I've never known anyone to better the advice she gave. She trained me for 16 years like that - and I did great.

Shrimp

for the sake of the poll, the guy whos build like a monster. No doubt.

GerryRyan

I'd say both - the personal trainer would be a great when starting out and getting a basic programme/routine marked out (along my own reading and research abviously).
But I'd have no problem looking for friendly advice or criticism from someone who's abviously done the work.

Then again - what suits them won't necessarily suit me.
Intelligent trial and error ftw

Sleepy

Most PT's I've come across seem to be pretty seriously underqualified tbh, so many of them seem to direct girls straight to the cardio machines and pink dumbells instead of towards a decent all round program.

My personal philosophy is to train like those I've seen get the kind of results I want myself.

ali.c

Okay most of the people who work as trainers in gyms are pretty crap tbh. They are some good ones i am sure, I just have not had the pleasure of making their acquaintance. Are they qualified PT's?

Hanley

Boru. wrote:

I think the way you've pharsed the question is a little loaded and betrays the type of response you want to hear, which is a tad unfair. While I DO get your point - it's looking at from a very one dimentional point of view - specifically that of a "lifter" - for instance I'm not going to ask a huge strong muscular guy like Ronnie Coleman or Dorian Yates to train me for a marathon. Just becasue they have big muscles does not mean they are fit, strong or healthy for that matter.

I tried to make it as unloaded as I could... I never suggested you ask a BB to train you for a marathon. In fact if you look at my first reply I asked if someone would rather have somebody who's proficent at a sport they're looking to get better at train them or have a PT with no relevant experience do it.

In fact many of the HUGE big guys displaying what at first appears to be an excellent physique are often plagued by small injuries (or more serious injuries) often as a results of postural imbalances, muscle imbalance and compression damage.

That's just the nature of the game tho. Look at ANY sport where any athlete pushes themself to the limit and you face similar situations.

Also, and I have tested this, many with incredible physiques aren't funtionally fit and can't use they're muscles as effeciently as the should (generally this is becasue of an over use of isolation exercsies) needed to bring out the muscle.

Functionality in what specific sense? They're functional at what their chosen disicipline (ie posing!). Saying bodybuilders muscles aren't funcitional in any other sense jsut isn't fair. Saying they aren't functional for every day life is also unfair. I bet a bodybuilder's unfunctional muscles are still more capable of picking up and moving that big plant pot in your back garden.

Mind you all of this is completely biased, becasue I happen to think the majority of bodybuilders, including many professionals are compromising their health and in fact wasting they're time because of an obsession with inefficent, un researched exercsie protocols.

Inefficent? I sincerly hope you're joking. They're inefficent protocals seem to be doing a good job at building some insane muscle mass (speaking about competitive BBs here). What's inefficent about it?

Then again there are other factors to consider - what area is interesting to you personally, how do you define fitness. Is it strength such as the ability to squat 900lbs clean? Then check out Bud Jefferies - he's a fat ass, he doesn't look great - but by God does he know his stuff....

Fitness to me equals endurance and a base level of strength. I wouldn't cite Bud Jeffries as someone who one should aspire to be like. From what I've seen and read of Bud he's a self serving loud mouth who trains odd lifts only and doesn't compete in any mainstream strength sport where he'd face real competition and would be forced to show how "strong" he actually is. http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/node/770

At the end of the day physique tells you VERY little about someone's abilities.And it tells you nothing about they're ability to teach others. A guy could have the best physique in the world but be completley unable to explain or teach it - Like Franco Columbo, awesome physique, made all his students eat yogurt cause that's what he did - they got fat.

It's the same with personal trainers - they can have all the degrees and qualifications in the world, (the only thing they are good for is getting your insurance validated), but if they can't impart that knowledge then what good are they? On the other hand a guy could look like absolute crap and still have the goods and better still be able to impart that.

My point is tho, if someone's too lazy to train themselves even tho they've such vast knowledge then should you really trust them with your training program. It just seems to me that if someone truly knew what they were talking about, then you could tell from their appearance.

What it comes down to is not appearance - it's results. Persoanlly I don't care who you are or what you look like, what qualifications you do or do not have if you can teach me someonthing I don't know and help me get the results I want in a safe and effective manner then that's all I care about.

Again, if someone can get results for others then surely they should also be able to establish a baseline for themselves? Like if they can't be bothered to put the effort into their own bodies then what is the likelyhood they'll be successful when it comes to someone elses?

nesf

Hanley wrote:

Like if they can't be bothered to put the effort into their own bodies then what is the likelyhood they'll be successful when it comes to someone elses?

Well, could it be a case that they'd have most of the knowledge of how to get someone else to be successful but not really inspire the person to really work hard at it because of the tendency of some people to resent taking advice from people who haven't done it themselves?

Leon11

I think the answer to the question all lies in the person seeking/looking for the advice.

If you are a newbie you are more than likely going to go with someone who is qualified and a couple of letters before the name.

However as you begin to form a baseline of specific knowledge I know I would be more inclined to listen to someone who's been there, done that.

Point in case, one of our coaches for the last couple of years played in the 95 WC final with the All Blacks, if he said jump you'd jump.

nesf

Leon11 wrote:

I think the answer to the question all lies in the person seeking/looking for the advice.

If you are a newbie you are more than likely going to go with someone who is qualified and a couple of letters before the name.

However as you begin to form a baseline of specific knowledge I know I would be more inclined to listen to someone who's been there, done that.

Point in case, one of our coaches for the last couple of years played in the 95 WC final with the All Blacks, if he said jump you'd jump.

A very good point, but can't you separate Rugby out a bit (like other team sports) between the skills needed to be a good player and a skills needed to be a good trainer/coach? There is some overlap but a good player would need to know more than just that needed to be a good player in order to be a good coach wouldn't he?

yomchi

Good question, to narrow it down a tad - I was talking to Mick last week about something similar. Basically I would rather take advice on someone who trains and competes with experience. I think competing in any field always carries extra kudos fo the person in question, they will be the guys/gals who have put themselves through the loop and have stepped up to the mantle - for me taking your training to a level for competition is tops. Therefore I would rather take advice of the person who has competed and has the experience to boot - for example for nutrition and body building I would listen to none else than Eamonn M - for PL'ing you're the dude I was chat too if that was my field.

t-ha

I'd say it depends tbh. It's hard to make it as black and white as that poll. One thing that isn't shown there, for example, is the trainers past record of getting results out of people. If I was looking for someone to train me that would probably be number one on my list of things to look for. Instincitively I'd like a trainer who's clearly walking the walk, but if it's a choice between someone with alot of under-the-bar experience and a past history of injuring all his clients or never producing winning athletes v's someone with no great accolades himself but has detailed knowledge, plenty of qualifications and has trained multitudes of athletes to very high levels then I'd be an idiot not to go with the latter. Of course the opposite is true too.

cowzerp

Hanley wrote:

Again, if someone can get results for others then surely they should also be able to establish a baseline for themselves? Like if they can't be bothered to put the effort into their own bodies then what is the likelyhood they'll be successful when it comes to someone elses?

Just because they might be out of what you call good shape does not mean thay are not fit or good at some other specific training type-everyone has different reasons for training.
You dont have to be a bodybuilder to have great knowledge on bodybuilding-lots of bodybuilders come to me for advice on exercise, diet and posing, the actual stuff most bodybuilders know about building is very basic-lift heavy and often and eat well etc.. but with knowledge of the science of the body and taking into consideration age, sex, present shape and the time people have to train you could train to a more proficent level, bodybuilders can be good but its well known that they can be terrible for technique and also not very truthfull about how they got there physique, i've trained bodybuilding but as a fighter i need to be light and very fast-this is what i train for-using lots of methods of training, including heavy weight training. i actually build up easily and as i aim to stay light this is a pain for me, dieting all the time, anyway with a top on most bb look like big fat guys and i dont like that look.

Leon11

nesf wrote:

A very good point, but can't you separate Rugby out a bit (like other team sports) between the skills needed to be a good player and a skills needed to be a good trainer/coach? There is some overlap but a good player would need to know more than just that needed to be a good player in order to be a good coach wouldn't he?

Agreed

daveirl

This post has been deleted.