|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Personal trainer article.|
|WikiProject Health and fitness||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Advertisers
- 2 Sections Started in 2006
- 3 Sections Started in 2007
- 4 Sections Started in 2008
- 5 Sections Started in 2010
- 6 Sections Started in 2011
- 7 Personal trainer accreditation redirected to this article
- 8 Personal Trainer vs Gym Instructor
- 9 Personal Trainer Courses in the UKCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the ).
Please stop adding advertisements. This is an encyclopedia, not free advertising.
Vandalism: I have noticed three times recently some users adding material to the Accreditation -> United States of America section. ACSM and NSCA are the only two that were indicated in that citation, but people have added certifications that are not in the cited material (NASM, ACE, ISSE). Please be on the lookout to maintain factual accuracy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Sections Started in 2006
If you are going to add the advert tag, please explain what you are talking about! Those of us who are trying to clean it up (I personally thought I had fixed the problem) have no clue what you object to. Please be specific, or fix it yourself! We need some personal trainers this week!!!... :)
Would be not good if that section (Not Yet... IHRSA) would include those certifications pending admission.
Phrases like "personal trainers are now widely available for a variety of people with a variety of goals (and with a variety of budgets)" seem very advert-like. DesertSky85451 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a little excessive. People have actually been advertising their personal training services - that's advert, and those links have been removed. However, it is true that the personal training profession has evolved to the point where "personal trainers are now widely available..." You wouldn't call this page an "ad for personal training".
- See: WP:PEACOCK. We could also say "Plumbers are now widely available for a variety of people with variety of goals (and with a variety of budgets)." It sounds silly because the sentence is nearly meaningless. For example, what does "widely available" mean? Can I get a plumber or personal trainer in, say, Greenland, Afghanistan, or Tibet? People sometimes forget that most of the Earth's surface is uninhabited or only sparsely inhabited. Personal trainers, like most service workers who rely on physical proximity with the client, have to work in or very near population centers. It's best to skip the peacock terms, and just say exactly where personal trainers are available (probably that would be in urbanized parts of the developed nations, at least in the United States), and how much they charge (which the article does state). Let the reader decide how to evaluate the expense; everyone has their own definition of "affordable," and all they need to know is the cost. In terms of availability, it would be better tell the user how to determine the availability of trainers in his or her locale. Something could be "widely available" and yet locally unavailable for one reader or another. --Teratornis 08:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Sections Started in 2007
Help this article!
I'm a personal trainer and I see so many concepts in this article that are biased, theoretical, misplaced, irrelevant, need to be sourced, or simply incorrect. I've changed a couple little things to help the article, but I'm not really familiar with editing on wikipedia, so I need to read a lot of the rules and guidelines to make larger changes. In the meantime, this article really needs to be reformatted and I want to find out if anyone with knowledge of wikipedia editing has any desire to work with me to help clean it up? 08:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Goodness this article is in a horrible state. On the one hand, a lot of the information isn't really about the idea or profession of being a personal trainer, but on the other hand that info shouldn't be moved to another article since it is unreferenced, confusing and not neccessarily true. On the other hand--I sympathize with the people that wrote this. They were, in all likelyhood, trying to help. So, what is the best way to go about eliminating the section titled "Myths about personal trainers?" That section is fitness advice. It has no place in this article, or even this encyclopedia due to the way it has been written.22.214.171.124 18:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
What a huge job ahead!
I won't make the call, but there are so many biases in this "article" that deleting and starting from scratch might be the best fix. Marc W. Abel 02:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone check the article?
An article was cited as support in this article, and while I found a couple of (mostly biased) websites with the same citation, when I went to the source and purchased the article from the journal, that the fact supported was not in the article. Why advertise for a certain certification? Certainly, some are more respected than others-- but a person should judge which is best for them within the level of accredited exams-- wikipedia is not for advertising for exams (which are paid for so are at least somewhat commercial products.) 126.96.36.199 01:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC).23.250
There is no such muscle grouping as the "lower abdominals" - the rectus abdominus is a single muscle. Anyone disputing this can refer to the EMG data referenced in any book by Dr. Stuart McGill from the University of Waterloo. Furthermore, it is ironic to see the term "iliopsoas" in a section debunking fitness myths - the iliacus (which connect the pelvis to the femur) and the psoas (which connects the lumbar vertebrae to the femur) are two different muscles, even though they merge into a common tendon and both serve ultimately to flex the hip. Does the entire section on fitness myths really even belong in this article at all? What is the relevance to personal training specifically? Aaron Benson 16:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- You're right--that section, as well as the safety section, doesn't belong in the article even if it was well-sourced. MrVibrating (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just started working out with a personal trainer and I feel as though he pushes me too far too quickly. I don't believe that I am ready to go full force on a treadmill or rowing machine for 10-15mins while holding weights. I haven't exercised in years. Am I wrong? Am I just being childish. I did workout with someone before, but I never cried through the entire workout and never got to the point that I didn't want to come back. I really get to the point where I don't want to go back. Am I supposed to feel that way. I am at the point where I see no results yet and I am being pushed to the point where I am almost passing out. I thought that personal trainers were supposed to be tough, but still encouraging and have a workout specified for you. Can anyone help me? I don't want to quit. I have wanted this for so long. Thanks.
- Just ask for another trainer. This guys sounds nuts. Holding weights while running also is incorrect on many, many levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
"This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."
Sections Started in 2008
Certification - moved for discussion
I moved the following here for discussion. It has some references at least. It definitely needs to be reworded so it's clearer, if anyone thinks it's worth keeping at all:
- In both the May 2005 issue of Fitness Business Pro and the March 2007 issue of Club Business Industry, IHRSA noted that personal trainer certifications programs either pursuing accreditation or accredited by NCCA or by an established accreditation body recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) and/or the U.S. Department of Education for the purposes of providing independent, third-party accreditation would meet IHRSA's recommendations for accreditation.
Salvaging the article
I think it may be worthwhile to try to salvage some of the sourced information copied below from the article. I came up with some headings to make it easier to discuss: --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Someone added the info below without any organization, plus added unsourced promotional material and linkfarms of accreditation agencies. I removed it all. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Accreditation in the US
In its March, 2007 article about this topic, IHRSA announced that it will recognize accreditation agencies that are recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) and/or the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) and/or the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA). The NCCA recognizes educational standards by awarding an accreditation.
Training at home versus a health club
The ACSM (American College of Sports Medicine) recently released a study showing that personal training at the client's home is as effective as personal training at a commercial health club. This was the first time that a random double blind trial provided strong data supporting this idea. 
Accreditation in Australia
Accredited certification for personal trainers within Australia is regulated through Fitness Australia 'Registration is effectively your stamp of approval to work in the fitness industry and is identified by Fitness Business as the benchmark for professional standards' (Fitness Australia, 2008). The minimum qualification required in Australia to be registered as a fitness professional is the Certificate 3 in fitness. Advanced accreditation is available through a Certificate 4 in fitness or Diploma of Fitness. Exercise related VET & TAFE<refjhdjfnnskska wsor fdsfdyg
Sections Started in 2010
approval of merges
- I will fight the merger between athletic trainer and personal trainer until the end of time. I work too hard to educate the people around me in the differences between the two to let Wikipedia say anything different. The following link is from the National Athletic Training Association’s website and it CLEARLY differentiates personal trainers from athletic trainers. http://www.nata.org/sites/default/files/ATs_vs_PTs.pdf ITasteLikePaint (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm with ITasteLikePaint. Certified Athletic Trainers (ATCs) and the National Athletic Trainers' Association (NATA) have worked for decades to distinguish themselves from the casual "trainer" or "personal trainer" references. They are NOT THE SAME; the "Athletic Trainer" and "Personal Trainer" articles should never, under any circumstances, be merged. As potentially flawed as it may be, Wikipedia exists as a "expert" source used to describe and differentiate millions of concepts - "athletic trainer" and "personal trainer" among them. Let's keep these distinct terms separate, as NATA and thousands of ATCs worldwide, including myself, have worked so hard to. ----
First of all, I am glad to see that Wikipedia did the right thing to separate Personal Trainers from Athletic Trainers. Having served as an Athletic Trainer in the schools and as a Personal Trainers in the gyms, I can tell you that the education, certification, training, and scope of the profession are completely different. With that said, I notice that Sports Trainer redirects you to Athletic Trainer. In the fields of Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, the term Sports Trainer is not really used as a profession. You are either an Athletic Trainer or a Personal Trainer. Now, you can be a Strength Coach, which is of course different than a Personal Trainer. Having served as a Stregth Coach in the schools as well, I can tell you that the scope of the profession is different than that of a Personal Trainer, despite some of the similarities in degrees such as Kinesiology and certifications like those from the NSCA and the ACSM. Strength Coaches work with athletics teams, like Athletic Trainers but from a strength and conditioning standpoint as opposed to an injury assessment and rehabilitation perspective; Personal Trainers generally work with individual clients, usually in the adult population, to improve one's overall health and fitness.--Mike Michelakis—Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC).
Apparently there is a lot more going on with “Sports trainer” than either of us thought. After a little digging, it seems that this is a much more complicated than semantics. Based on what I could find, I made the changes that I feel are right. Feel free to check my work and see what you think. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC).
The article, while it is good that it is no longer a redirect to athletic trainer and is a stand alone entity of its own, sounds alot like student trainers going to school in the process of becoming athletic trainers. Check out NATA approved curriculum programs who use the athletics programs on college campuses, which have student trainers help out at sports practices. These count as hours towards ATC certification. Just being CPR and First Aid certified through the ARC or the AHA doesn't make you a sports trainer, as mentioned in the article. A number of hands on hours are required, not to mention continuing education. Again, do some research and you will find that the sports trainer seems to be a subsidiary of the athletic trainer. Thus, the student trainer here in America, similar to but different from the sports trainer in Austrailia.--Mike Michelakis—Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC).
Sections Started in 2011
Clean-up March 2011
A personal trainer is a person who helps people exercise. – they do not necessarily physically "help " people physically perform the exercise.
The scope of practice for a personal trainer is to enhance the components of fitness - this is essentially true, but not wholly true.
for the general, healthy population. – not all; some are certified to work with other populations
The five classic components of fitness are muscular strength, muscular endurance, body composition, cardiovascular endurance, and flexibility, although there are other subsets like power, skill, and speed. – this is not relevant
The general population is defined as an age range of 18 to about 50 (45 and younger for males, 55 and younger for females). The definition of healthy in this context means an absence of a disease that would affect one's ability to exercise. Anyone outside that scope of practice should be placed in a trainer's scope after a visit to the doctor to see what kind, if any, exercise they are capable of. – again, some personal trainers are certified, for better or worse, to work with such populations. Relevance is very thin here.
In contrast to an athletic trainer (AT), a personal trainer may not have higher education in the health sciences, may not be required to obtain any particular kind of professional certification for purposes of the job, or may be "certified" by one of any number of organizations that only require minimal coursework or the most basic of competencies, and that is not recognized nationally or internationally. - why is this in here? It is like saying, "In contrast to a professor, elementary school teachers do not have to have a Ph.D., may not have written a dissertation…"
For athletic trainers, all must have at least a bachelor’s degree specifically in the athletic training health profession, must pass a comprehensive exam before earning the athletic training credential, must keep their knowledge and skills current by participating in continuing education in the field, and must adhere to the specific standards of professional practice set by one national certifying agency. (1) – again, not relevant; the professional responsibilities of an athletic trainer (a professional who works with medical professionals) are completely different than a personal trainer.
Many personal trainers work through local fitness centers such as personal training studios and health clubs, assisting clients within the facility. Others may be available for sessions in a clients home, or serve as instructors for fitness classes. Trainers are generally needed to demonstrate various exercises and help clients improve their exercise techniques. Due to the more interpersonal contact between a trainer and a client versus a general gym setting, a trainer is more readily able to provide motivation and support to an individual in an exercise program, in addition to proper technical instruction. A trainer can keep records of their clients’ exercise sessions to help monitor progress, and may also advise their clients on how to modify their lifestyle outside of the gym to improve their fitness. – much of this describes what some trainers may typically do but are not necessarily common or true
The ACSM (American College of Sports Medicine) recently released a study showing that personal training at the client's home is as effective as personal training at a commercial health club. This was the first time that a random double blind trial provided strong data supporting this idea.  - 'this is interesting' but simply not relevant
- Jillian Michaels
- Kim Lyons
- Lyen Wong
- Nick Mitchell (bodybuilder)
- Prince Daniel of Sweden - whether this is useful is up for debate
- Thanks for your efforts. This cleanup requires cleanup of its own. Overall, I think it's an improvement, but I wouldn't be against reverting it all and trying again. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- In the changes made, I have attempted to make the article into a closer approximation of the language and content in an encyclopedia, improve its accuracy, and use academic language. I then justified each removal. If you could please be more specific in terms of individual items that you believe should be changed, that would be helpful. I am not arrogant enough to believe that this contribution is perfect, but the idea of reverting to what was previously there seems unfounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- The way that the changes were made, three large edits with only a single edit summary, makes it difficult for others to evaluate the changes, and incorporate simple corrections. However, the comments here are very helpful. Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself.
- I want to see what others think before going ahead with cleaning up the errors and other problems that resulted. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and fixed the two problems that immediately caught my eye. --Ronz (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I have just expanded on the introduction/description of personal training. I felt as though the short intro the page had previously did not adequately provide a proper description of personal training services. I believe that all of the new information is verifiable with the source that I provided. However, I would encourage any other editors to find other reliable sources of information for citations as well. I feel as though this page has much room for improvement and I would encourage any other editors out there to find the time to help make this page more organized and coherent. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Two similar changes to cited material removed
Just for those who are also on the look out for vandalism: I have noticed twice recently some users adding material to the Accreditation -> United States of America section. Certifications that are not in the cited material have been added (NASM, ACE). ACSM and NSCA are the only two in that citation. I mention this only to maintain factual accuracy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Personal trainer accreditation redirected to this article
I have redirected Personal trainer#Accreditation. That article was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 June 16. After carefully examining it, I found it to consist almost entirely of copypastes from various pages of multiple websites. It also contained excessive use of quotes, none of which were sourced. The article was exclusively about the UK (contrary to its title) and contained much irrelevant information about general accreditation issues for vocational training in the UK and had nothing to do with personal training accreditation. I have redirected it to the accreditation section here. Anyone who wishes to improve the UK sub-section with more detail is encouraged to do so, but it must be entirely in your own words except for very brief quotes which comply with Wikipedia's criteria for the use of non-free content, and are sourced with inline citations. Voceditenore (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)to