best PT certification?

If you plan to train typical gym goers, NASM is a good first cert. NCSF is a watered-down ACSM. I've heard ACE is watery too. No knowledge of ISSA. If you can afford NPTI, which is an actual school, that might be a good option.

i was certified through ACE. nothing bad to say about it

NSCA is still one of the best for personal trainers IMO. There was a recent discussion on a site I follow on Facebook featuring people I feel are some of the best to follow right now--Contreras, Schoenfeld, Aragon, Krieger--and they absolutely torched NASM--basically saying that research has shown that the whole "functional training" model is not that effective and has hindered the progress of those who follow it. (As always in these types of discussions, they were focusing mostly on the apparently healthy population.

Also, keep in mind that a certification should be a culmination of your training--a validation that you have achieved a certain level of academic knowledge and practical experience--not an entry-level step.

I'm a Personal Trainer and Corrective Exercise Specialist through the NASM. There are some things I don't agree with them on, but overall it's a good certification which is well known and respected in the industry.

tiffanyfoundit wrote: »

What don't you agree with? (@leadfoot_lewis)

For starters, their "OPT" Model. You just don't need to spend weeks on end with a client training them with "Stabilization" exercises such as one legged Bicep Curls, BOSU Ball crap, etc. which are pretty worthless IMHO. If you properly strength train them, they will be getting the benefits of stabilization which goes along with strength. Also a lot of their exercise selection and form is way off e.g. squatting above parallel with feet/ankles/knees pointed forward (which they suggest) is a recipe for knee disaster.

That said, I learned a great deal about anatomy, kinesiology, and being able to spot muscle imbalances and correct them (this is much more in detail with their Corrective Exercise Specialist Certification). Despite it's faults I still do believe I have one of the best certifications in the business.

Azdak wrote: »

There was a recent discussion on a site I follow on Facebook featuring people I feel are some of the best to follow right now--Contreras, Schoenfeld, Aragon, Krieger--and they absolutely torched NASM--basically saying that research has shown that the whole "functional training" model is not that effective and has hindered the progress of those who follow it.

I'm interested in seeing this discussion, if you can share it.

Azdak wrote: »

Cherimoose wrote: »

Azdak wrote: »

There was a recent discussion on a site I follow on Facebook featuring people I feel are some of the best to follow right now--Contreras, Schoenfeld, Aragon, Krieger--and they absolutely torched NASM--basically saying that research has shown that the whole "functional training" model is not that effective and has hindered the progress of those who follow it.

I'm interested in seeing this discussion, if you can share it.

I don't know how to link to specific facebook discussions. Here is a link that should take you to Brad's page:

www.facebook.com/brad.schoenfeld.cscs?fref=ts

Scroll down to an entry dated October 20. He shows an NASM workout planning sheet. Client's stated goal is "lose body fat" and the program lists almost all core/balance training and a lot of stability ball exercises. There are tons of comments that advance the discussion. It's good stuff. These guys are doing a lot of research and so they routinely debunk a lot of training cliches. Definitely woo-busters.

I am certainly not trying to "defend" nasm by any means, but I can offer a little bit of clarification and my own opinion on the matter.

The OPT model works like this:


You perform an assessment on your client to determine their current physiological state. This includes any sort of postural distortion or irregular movement pattern. You test their mobility, cardio endurance, strength, and balance.

Because the OPT model is based off of the concept of functional training most clients (who are deconditioned) will have some sort of issue you want to fix and work on BEFORE jumping in to strength training. In my mind, this makes perfect sense. If you've developed improper movement patterns and we go over to strength training with barbells or dumbbells (which require stabilization) you are opening yourself up for injury.

The goal here is to fix problems first, THEN by working in periods of 4-6 weeks ("periodized training") move through the different levels of the OPT model depending on their goal. For example, someone who wants to lose weight will probably be moving between stabilization and strength endurance phases.

Each of these phases of the OPT model have their own rep ranges, goals, etc. and are tailored to the individual.


In my experience anyway this is an excellent way to train clients (even though i don't follow it to a T) simply because it slowly and safely moves them from inactivity to consistent activity. In addition, by keeping training periodized we're able to keep clients within the first two phases of GAS adaptation reducing their risk of injury due to over-use.


What I will say, however, is that you must use your common sense when it comes to training clients. If you are training a newbie who lacks any sort of coordination then YES the single leg bicep curl is going to stress their balance and encourage adaptation. But if the client is "new" and has no postural problems, wants to focus on weight loss, and is only moderately out of shape there is NO REASON to force them to do these ridiculous exercises for 6 weeks.

I generally do a sort of "ramp on" with these types of clients (about 4 weeks) where we slowly incorporate strength training movements, focus on learning proper form, and get their endurance up (lifting in the 12-15 rep range), while keeping the weights low. If they have some SLIGHT posture issues (which is very common) we'll work to correct that. A common example of this might be the forward head or rounded shoulders. We focus on stretching, strengthening weak muscles, etc. AND THEN we amp up the intensity.


It's a fine balance of giving people results vs. giving them rhabdo because you think you can train them like an athlete. I do agree that especially in the stabilization phase it's too long and over-used. Where i disagree is that everyone is ready to just jump into physical activity after sitting on their *kitten* for 5 years.


edit: Also, i looked at that workout and... so what? I don't know, the whole post comes off as douchey. We know FIRST HAND how someone acheives fat loss, dont we? They stop eating so many calories. Trying to kill your clients in the gym when we don't know that persons physical state? I don't know... seems pretty stupid.

I don't think that was an excellent workout, and in general if the person is healthy enough to do so I will try and make their routine a circuit to keep calories burned high... but come on... how much are we going to be burning in our 30 minutes together? Or our hour? Not nearly enough to offset a *kitten* diet.