When will science finally hit the gym floor? We have been through the aerobics era, the bodybuilding era, HIIT, functional and many other trends (and some fads). What we need is a common foundation guiding all of this, I believe that to be the scientific era (evidence based).
I define the scientific era as knowledge provision on the gym floor that is grounded in empirical evidence on what works and what doesn’t, how something should be done, and how it shouldn’t. Too much of what we see on the gym floor is dominated by intuition, anecdotal evidence, teachings passed down, and in some cases, pure nonsense influenced by the media and so called fitness gurus (with no qualifications to be speak of).
In fact, evidence based practice is mix of a few factors which are well encapsulated in the below explanation by Alan Aragon:
Let’s take an example:
Women in Asia are still generally worried about lifting weights due to the myth that strength training will make them look bulky. ‘I don’t wanna get too muscular’ is probably the most oft heard phrase when a woman is newly introduced to weights. So they tend to focus on cardio and classes such as Pilates etc as they believe it will give them a toned and long, lean muscle look.
Step in the quasi experts and celebrities such as Gwyneth Paltrow and the belief that long lean muscles can be achieved by their espoused methods whereas lifting weights will give you a bulky look, and bang the myth becomes reality!
I am not saying that Pilates or Yoga are not effective methods of training. I am saying that claiming these are capable of giving you long lean muscles whilst weight lifting will make you bulky is utter nonsense. The science is clear, muscle length and shape is predetermined and even intense stretching over extended periods of time seems to have little influence. Although training or long periods of inactivity can affect muscle length that effect is short lived and I imagine invisible to the human eye. What a woman sees as ‘tone’, is actually muscle growth and/or body fat reduction. Tone is essentially a level of leanness achieved by exercise and nutrition. Toning is bodybuilding because it is muscle growth. You can’t tone up! You build muscle or you don’t. So claiming that weight lifting will make you bulky and more ‘womanly’ methods will make you look toned and lean is not science, its nonsense. Its even more nonsense to claim such forms of exercise are going to deliver better results than HIIT for leanness.
Let’s take another example:
The explosion of so called functional training has been a boon to the fitness industry. Its also been a double edged sword! A plethora of equipment and training methods to choose from, many of which are not based on any type of science. The whole word functional is exceptionally confusing also. Functional depends on your goal. If isolated quadriceps strength is needed (ie. An 80 year old women who has problems getting of the toilet due to a quad and hamstring strength imbalance), then a leg extension or smith machine squats could be highly functional.
Standing on a bosu ball and curling 10kg DBs is functional for nothing, unless you live on a planet with bosu balls for ground! It doesn’t improve your balance and it doesn’t more greatly engage your core than standing on a stable surface and lifting the amount of weight you are normally capable of lifting when not standing on something wobbly. Walk into any gym nowadays and watch trainers assigning all sorts of nonsense exercises in the name of functionality. Yes, it’s great that this seems to have opened a new segment to the health market but at the end of the day, people want results safely. Many of these types of exercises and programs offer neither. Hence the large degree of disillusionment often associated with our industry.
I suppose linked closely to all this are the fitness professionals in the club. Most complete their one time certification and then seem disinterested to know more. They are more like professional counters than professional trainers. I am still amazed at the amount of trainers I see allowing terrible exercise form, have the audacity to talk on their phones, and not even record the workouts of their clients. How is this still acceptable?
If your trainers are not even remotely familiar with works of some of the people below then something is terribly wrong:
- Alan Aragon
- Brad Schoenfeld
- Bret Contreras
- Dr Jade Teta
- Nick Tumminello
- Eric Helms
- Prof William Kraemer
- Prof Steven J Fleck
- Dr John Rusin
- Joel Seedman
- Dr Donald Chu
- Dr Jim Stoppani
- Mike Boyle
- Mark Rippetoe
- Eric Cressey
- Prof Stuart McGill
- Dr John Beradi
- Dr Kelley Starret
Ultimately, if science is going to hit the gym floor, it must hit the management of these clubs. I don’t just mean in terms of education, policies, and procedures related to how trainers will work with members. I mean how management actually works with the fitness staff themselves. Management science and know how in terms of innovation, motivation, and people development.
Strategy & Competitiveness 