Anyone can take an online course and call himself or herself a ‘personal trainer’ regardless of whether they have any weight training experience or understand the essential principles of training including progression. The problem is that with less knowledge, it is easier to convince yourself that you are an `expert’ regardless of whether you are, or not. If you lack qualifications, ` you do not know what you do not know’ and the more confidence you have, the easier it is to attract gullible clients, who do not know any better, especially with easy online access and an attractive Facebook page. Trainers lacking qualifications are arguably more vulnerable to adopting trends and misinformation that is exacerbated by the internet. Fad diets, strange supplements and weird training programmes are only some of the offerings available and promoted to clients who are willing to pay in their pursuit of health and wellbeing.
A suitably qualified trainer has the knowledge and professionalism to refer clients presenting outside their scope of practice to other professionals. A key to injury prevention is a comprehensive health screening e.g. REPS (New Zealand Register of Sports Professionals) and ESSA (Exercise and Sports Science Australia). This includes important medical information, a risk assessment, and referral to a medical practitioner when appropriate. Other conditions screened for include previous/current musculoskeletal injuries, pregnancies (recent or current), arthritis, epilepsy and medication.
Sound knowledge of anatomy, physiology, biomechanics, training principles and nutrition means clients are more likely to receive effective health screening, appropriate referrals, assessment, programming and supervision/monitoring resulting in a lesser likelihood of injury.
With the proliferation of CrossFit, Bootcamps, franchises, 24-hr availability and the competitive nature of the gym environment, the reality is that gym memberships are cheap, some as low as $6.99/week. Within the fitness industry, there are organisations that will only hire suitably qualified individuals. Conversely, others may be reluctant to fork out higher wages to qualified individuals when they can pay a minimum wage to an unqualified charismatic individual. In addition, clients who do not want to pay the additional cash for a qualified PT might receive one demonstration on how to work the equipment or they rely on a `mate’. This means they are more likely to train with inadequate supervision, use faulty training technique and too much load – hence increasing the likelihood of being another ACC statistic.
ACC claims for gym-related injuries have soared to 52,964 for gym related injuries in 2017 from 17,694 in 2011 and more information is required. Documentation of further information would help shed light on where the problems actually lie within the industry. What type of activity are these people involved in when they are injured? Were they using a trainer, if so what qualifications did the trainer have? Surely, the $32.33 million cost injury costs currently incurred to the taxpayer could be an incentive to spend more on education of the public and injury prevention.
I suggest a three-pronged approach:
1. An analysis of the following -
a. What activities clients are engaged in when they are injured?
b. What qualifications does the Trainer hold?
2. Improved public education – ‘Let the buyer beware’ but inform them first! Successful campaign examples Master Builders/Master Concrete Placers. Promote through television, newspapers, magazines and social media.
3. Alignment and accreditation with SESNZ for degree-qualified graduates wanting to work in the fitness industry. Graduates with accreditation with REPS and SENZ would clearly set themselves apart.
Reference:
Instructor Certification: Making Fitness Programs Safer?
Heyward L. Nash
The Physician and Sportsmedicine Vol. 13, Iss. 10, 198
