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.