Joanne I could not agree more!
Program Design should be seen as your branding.
When the industry becomes cognititive of the effects that branding has, we will create value in our service to the medical community.
In addition to improving our image in the medical community I feel structured programming that requires a specific set of variables to a specific goal helps communicate in an easy way to a potential client what the process will look like to reach their fitness goals.
It no longer matters wether you train with Trainer X or Trainer Y there will be a consistent product delivered. Also, with consistency of exercise selection, intensity, you can problem solve through process of elimination collectively as a training department. Minimizing “ART” will allow for a more control group result leading to indisputable results approach.
As a follow-up to my earlier post, I do NOT see principles and guidelines as being a systemized approach or process at all. As a matter of fact, these guidelines and principles are part of the SCIENCE of personal training upon which we as trainers develop our ART of training. While it’s true that certain approaches to training, such as periodization, represent ‘systems of training,’ it’s also true that even periodizaiton has its exceptions, and in most cases in working with athletes, a TRUE periodization ‘system’ seldom works as it’s posed in the textbooks. Athletes playing multiple sports which makes the various cycles of periodization impossible, is just one example of how this ‘system’ often cannot be strictly adhered to, but instead the trainer must use their own ingenuity (ART) to adjust to the particular athlete’s needs.
In my view, I see the issue of systemizing training as developing programs that serve as a ‘one-size fits all’ like some of the more popular ‘lose weight quick’ or ‘get in shape in X days’ programs out there. The problem with such ‘systems’ is that one size does NOT fit all, and therefore seldom is a textbook system truly adaptable to the general client population “as is.” So therefore, I see the ‘dangers’ of systemizing training as being potentially taking away the creativity and the PERSONAL aspect of personal training – a movement that I would hate to see.
Hopefully this clarifies my opinion on what systemizing means to me.
I’d be happy with a clearer definition of “systematization.”
From reading the above posts, it appears that all have a different perspective of what “systematization” means.
From my perspective when I think of “systematization”, I think of training models like NASM OPT, ACE IFT, which I don’t believe limit the art and creativity of program design.
However, as a consequence of having a systematic process towards program design many rookie and experienced fitness professionals have an effective method to utilize as far as program design is concerned.
If one wants to dissect “systematization” then one can say that periodization is form of systematization in addition to utilizing the principles of program design whether or not one is using a systematized approach. For example.
Frequency, intensity, time, type, enjoyment–these are all principles we use in program design based upon scientific guidelines.
If it were not for the “systematized” principles and guidelines, we would truly see the wild, wild west in our industry.
The fact that researchers in the field of exercise physiology/science have come up with guidelines and principles that are the backbone of our profession, at the most basic level, systematization has proven to be beneficial at some level for the entire industry.
From my perspective, it is the systematization at the most basic level that will earn the fitness professional credibility from the medical profession. If medical professionals were confident that fitness professionals across the board were approaching fitness programming from scientific (which is always systematic) approach, I believe we would have more respect from them.