Price of a personal trainer

[Phedder]

You may find 3 years to be enough, I wouldn't commit to anything past what you're about to start just yet. I think we all get to a point with study where the cost to benefit ratio becomes unfavourable to continue, due to the law of diminishing returns. At first you'll be learning so much new information, but as time passes what you're learning each year just isn't enough. It gets to a point where you're confident in your ability to prescribe training and diet etc to clients, and is an extra year of studying instead of getting out there and working really worth it? This point is obviously going to be different for each individual, we just have to discover ourselves when that is.

[Rookie]

I hear Nick Smith charges $80 for under an hour

If people perceive that as value, they will pay it I guess. I wonder who his market is?

I think he targets people who come into Health2000 looking for the magic bullet :pfft: Heard he's a "health consultant" there and promotes his PT biz :roll:

Phed: I don't think 3 years would be enough bro (study alone), from the material we learn- nutrition and ex prescription in particular. We got showed software that the sports scientists use to make programs, pretty much like a cookie cutter and I thought "WTF this is what we get taught and we pay 5grand+ a year". If it was 3 years of study coupled with 3 years hard training/practical experience would be a diff story, if that was what you were meaning? A lot of people from my course will go on to be trainers etc without having much practical experience (just the books), and I reckon both together would be a good package.

[Dr Squat]

so as a PT.... once u have ur reps cert or basic pt cert.... what do u suggest studying to add to ur knowlege and quals???

nutrition course too

Exercise physiology, functional anatomy, Biomechanics, Nutrition, Psychology and probably many more. Of course more practical experience as well, but knowing the science behind what you're doing is important IMO.

For a strength and conditioning coach yes. But for a PT? A little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.

My point is that there needs to be a clear distinction between an S&C coach and a PT. I would expect a good S&C coach to have post grad quals in exercise science or similar. Not so important for a PT.

[Rookie]

so as a PT.... once u have ur reps cert or basic pt cert.... what do u suggest studying to add to ur knowlege and quals???

nutrition course too

Exercise physiology, functional anatomy, Biomechanics, Nutrition, Psychology and probably many more. Of course more practical experience as well, but knowing the science behind what you're doing is important IMO.

For a strength and conditioning coach yes. But for a PT? A little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.

My point is that there needs to be a clear distinction between an S&C coach and a PT. I would expect a good S&C coach to have post grad quals in exercise science or similar. Not so important for a PT.

I think its gone a bit off track here, a PT would not need to learn biomechanics and psychology, however everything else Phedder mentioned is basically what is in a PT course. How many quals does your bro have? Thomo was saying that post grad study is highly recommended as a S&C coach if you want to stand out/get a job. He talked about having a point of difference.

[Dr Squat]

Exercise physiology, functional anatomy, Biomechanics, Nutrition, Psychology and probably many more. Of course more practical experience as well, but knowing the science behind what you're doing is important IMO.

For a strength and conditioning coach yes. But for a PT? A little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.

My point is that there needs to be a clear distinction between an S&C coach and a PT. I would expect a good S&C coach to have post grad quals in exercise science or similar. Not so important for a PT.

I think its gone a bit off track here, a PT would not need to learn biomechanics and psychology, however everything else Phedder mentioned is basically what is in a PT course. How many quals does your bro have? Thomo was saying that post grad study is highly recommended as a S&C coach if you want to stand out/get a job. He talked about having a point of difference.

I think most top S&C jobs in NZ prefer a masters and prefer a PhD! Seriously. It's a hard field to get into. There will be other ways in such as internships and assistants of course. Your demonstarted ability in the field will also be valued.

I think the point of difference can come from demonstarting success. A while back in this thread I suggested doing some "free" work and getting some runs on the board and using this to sell to prospective clients/employers.

[BarBrother]

I think a general understanding of biomechanics e.g gait and levers is good knowledge to have. When I done the Diploma Fitness Training @ AUT prior to doing further study I didnt think it was enough but looking back i think theory wise it sets a good base. the rest will be learnt with experience.

[Dr Squat]

I think a general understanding of biomechanics e.g gait and levers is good knowledge to have. When I done the Diploma Fitness Training @ AUT prior to doing further study I didnt think it was enough but looking back i think theory wise it sets a good base. the rest will be learnt with experience.

The theory versus practical debate is one that every profession has. Geez, I am an accountant and uni was pretty irrelevant looking back. But tertiary study does teach you how to learn and that's the most important part.

[BarBrother]

I think being able to commit for upto a year or past it shows good personal adherence. What does annoy me in general is that people want to make a career out of being PT but are only prepared to put in 6 weeks of training to do it.

[Dr Squat]

I think being able to commit for upto a year or past it shows good personal adherence. What does annoy me in general is that people want to make a career out of being PT but are only prepared to put in 6 weeks of training to do it.

Possibly has something to do with the rewards at the end of it? Top PTs who have passion and see the bigger picture will seek out the best courses and also better themselves out of the classroom. I may be wrong but I suspect that most PTs who go through those courses don't really want to be PTs.

[Phedder]

Phed: I don't think 3 years would be enough bro (study alone), from the material we learn- nutrition and ex prescription in particular. We got showed software that the sports scientists use to make programs, pretty much like a cookie cutter and I thought "WTF this is what we get taught and we pay 5grand+ a year". If it was 3 years of study coupled with 3 years hard training/practical experience would be a diff story, if that was what you were meaning? A lot of people from my course will go on to be trainers etc without having much practical experience (just the books), and I reckon both together would be a good package.

I'd say the time depends on the quality of the course among other things, 3 years at one institute may be like 5 at another. Pin pointing a number of years as being sufficient also seems a tad redundant. It's the level of knowledge a person attains that matters, could take 3, could take 5 or 7 etc. I wouldn't choose someone who had 7 years of study under their belt over someone who had 3 just for the sake of numbers. Obviously there's much more to be considered, what other experience they have outside of the theory etc. 7 years of just theory or 3 years of theory coupled with hard training and practical experience like you said, I know what I'd pick :wink:

I was responding to SamuelNZ, so I'm assuming he will continue training hard during his studies. 3 years may be enough to get to the level he wants to reach, it may not be. Everything has to be tailored to the individual and their needs/wants.

For a strength and conditioning coach yes. But for a PT? A little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.

My point is that there needs to be a clear distinction between an S&C coach and a PT. I would expect a good S&C coach to have post grad quals in exercise science or similar. Not so important for a PT.

I think every PT should at least have a basic understanding of what I listed, preferably more. Not sure what you mean about the knowledge? Someone who has a little knowledge but acts like they know it all and everything they say has to be correct? If that's what you're meaning I'd argue that's a product of personality and not level of knowledge. Someone like that could be just as dangerous or even more so after gaining further knowledge, sort of solidifying their beliefs further and closing their minds to any other possible trains of thought. The quote in my sig applies here.

I agree totally about the need for a clear distinction though, one is far more specialised and does require a greater understanding, and PTs tend to be far more generalised. However I wouldn't complain if my PT had similar qualifications as an S&C coach, unnecessary yes, but also advantageous.

I think its gone a bit off track here, a PT would not need to learn biomechanics and psychology, however everything else Phedder mentioned is basically what is in a PT course.

I'd still argue basic Biomechanical and psychological knowledge should be required, perhaps not to the same extent as the physiology and anatomy, but still necessary. By basic I mean the knowledge of how the body generates forces through the muscles and joints, torques etc, how that applies to the exercises being prescribed. Psychology is helpful in understanding your clients more and perhaps being better able to motivate them too.

I agree with the last few posts of Doc and BarBrother :nod: Especially the lack of effort and time some are prepared to invest.

There I go again, demonstrating my ability to ramble :oops: I need to learn to be more concise damn it

[Grover]

Ramble on as much as you like here, but if I'm paying you $80 hour to train me different story!

[Chemo]

My opinions of whats needed for the following

Fitness instructor -3 months training

Personal Trainer/Fitness consultant - 1 year + some proof of success

I think Psyc would be a powerful tool too.

In fact anything breaking into sports science would benefit a trainer.

Specialized Coach - Applied science degree or something similar

Elite coach - Proven results, qualifications are secondary

I have a little less respect for study within an institution nowadays, a lot of my studies I've just seen mediocrity and little work ethic. Those people still came out qualified...The best peeps in the sports industry gotta be passionate about it, and it will to show.

[ThePman]

For a strength and conditioning coach yes. But for a PT? A little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.

I think every PT should at least have a basic understanding of what I listed, preferably more. Not sure what you mean about the knowledge? Someone who has a little knowledge but acts like they know it all and everything they say has to be correct? If that's what you're meaning I'd argue that's a product of personality and not level of knowledge. Someone like that could be just as dangerous or even more so after gaining further knowledge, sort of solidifying their beliefs further and closing their minds to any other possible trains of thought. The quote in my sig applies here.

The problem you're going to find here is that knowledge leads to confidence, and that has its own way of narrowing a viewpoint. I speak to this from personal experience, because in my younger days I was a more typical internet know-it-all and much less accepting of anything outside my orthodoxy. It's just how the brain works, unless you realize it and get over it.

But the Doc is spot on -- I can point you to a thread or two on this very board where somebody preaching the Personal Training 101 orthodoxy argues with me over subjects I've studied in some detail, using primary peer-reviewed sources to actually investigate the topic past the sound-bites which are taught in most programs, without even realizing that I'm not saying they're wrong, just incomplete in their knowledge.

And ironically enough, I'm one of those arguing against the excessive use of science to figure things out. The more I've learned in the science department the more I've realized that it's more of a hobby. It lets me understand why the good coaches get results, and I like to tinker with the ins and outs, but it doesn't especially help my coaching. I'd say 99% of what I do comes from been there, done that knowledge, or tricks I've picked up from people that have been there done that. I filter it through my science knowledge, sure, but what works, works.

If I wanted to get big/strong/fast, I'd go to the guy getting results, not the guy who could pin me down in a Pubmed war. *shrug*

[tomsammce]

what threads that bro?

[Dr Squat]

The cynic in me would say that people don't care;

- the PT doesn't really want to be a PT once they come to terms with the lack of glamour that the job offers. Most will move on to other careers. They only wasted 8 weeks or so;

- the client doesn't really want to be in the gym so their lack of passion results in no results. They feel bad about letting their young and broke PT down so they keep paying;

- the gym doesn't care because they get their rent from the PT and their are plenty more young, ambitious and "qualified" PTs waiting to have a crack.

Win, win, win you might say.

[Cameron_R]