A Physician's Viewpoint

I had a conversation today with a practicing physician who holds an M.D. in Internal Medicine, an M.D. in Psychiatry, and an MS in Molecular Biology. He is also a reputable speaker for pharmaceutical companies, which pay him to fly all over the country to lecture and teach other physicians about new medications.

Prior to this meeting, I read through the new issue of Personal Fitness Professional. In it were a few references to 50 state standardized testing for trainers, state protocols similar to physicians for trainers, and (my favorite) how to "raise ourselves up on a pedestal next to medical doctors, at least in public perception." Now, first of all, if I was a physician who had spent several years of hard work, expensive med school, and countless sacrifices to become an M.D. and I read such a statement, I may just be a little offended, or amused, depending on the perspective. Either way, how can such a statement be taken seriously?

I have also asked why there aren't any physicians backing up this idea. I mean, you are telling us what physicians will do, but I am not hearing it from them! So today, I asked one.

Why did he choose his trainer? He had heard of my success in helping people and of my emphasis on functional training to prepare for daily life. Once he worked with me, he was impressed and believed my knowledge and approach could produce his desired results. No mention of certification or boards.

Would it make a difference to him if a trainer had passed a board exam? No. In fact, he feels that one of the biggest problems in medicine today is all of the irrational protocols surrounding the board and licensing, and that it is ultimately the patient who has suffered. He said that we have it good right now, and if someone wants to bring a board exam into the field, our road will be long and hard, and many good people will not get into the field. He cited that different states have so many different rules and tests, even with a national board states are different. He is licensed in two states, and points out that there is a 60% gap between the pass/fail rate of the two states.

Would it be a good idea for trainers to seek insurance company approval? Absolutely not! In his words we would "ruin our own lives" if we start messing with them. In his private practice, a full 8% of the earnings is paid to the medical billing services, that is whoever does the billing coding and sends it out to the insurance companies. Not to mention that they often refuse to pay! He says many doctors are going to out-of-pocket services where the client gets reimbursed directly and the physician does not deal with the insurance companies at all. Right away they are saving at least 8%! I told him that there are some cases of that going on with personal training, and he said, "then why in the world would they want insurance companies telling them what to do!"

What did he think about trainers suggesting they should market themselves on a pedestal next to medical doctors? He laughed. He said that everyone always wants to be a doctor, no matter what profession they are in, people invariably compare themselves to the M.D. His suggestion was to just be what you are, and be the best you can be at it! Get respect for what you do and how well you do it, don't worry about comparing yourself to another profession! He stated, without any coaching from me, "I think of all the years of hard work and long hours I put in to be an M.D., if you want that accomplishment and respect, you have to do the same. I respect other physicians, because I know what they went through to get here."
I think that really says it all.

(to be continued)

Georgia Personal Trainers in Jeopardy!

Recently, Georgia proposed SB 401, a bill to require licensing for personal trainers. The bill outlined that no one could hold themselves out as a personal trainer without a state issued license, and to obtain the license you must pass a state exam. The bill also read “The board may grant a personal trainer’s license without examination to any qualified applicant who holds a certification from the National Board of Fitness Examiners.” (Note the use of the phrase “may grant”.) The “board” spoken of in the bill referred to the Georgia Board of Athletic Trainers, who according to the bill was responsible for defining, governing, and outlining the scope-of-practice for personal trainers. The bill was killed in committee due to numerous sources of opposition. This opposition was mainly heard from the Athletic Trainers community and the academic physiology community.

Involved groups such as the Georgia Athletic Trainer’s Association felt that there were not strict enough requirements for personal trainers written into the bill. Both Paul Higgs, Vice-President of the GATA, and Georgia Senator Emanuel Jones, who initiated the bill, have stated in interviews that the bill will be reintroduced and will include educational requirements for personal trainers. The GATA also held the view that the bill was weak in its use of the NBFE, whom they have never even heard of, as the standard. Mr. Higgs stated in an interview that they would like to see more established, reputable, and widely used organizations such as the American College of Sports Medicine, which has been the guideline in academic courses for many years and who also works closely with the Center for Disease Control and the American Heart Association, or the National Strength and Conditioning Association, which certifies Athletic Trainers as allied health care professionals.

It is important to note that personal trainers did not have any representation in this matter. The definition of a qualified personal trainer and the scope-of-practice were left completely up to the Georgia Board of Athletic Trainers. This is not in the best interests of personal trainers at all.

When our industry falls under legislative powers, and we are not represented, we will be at the mercy of other more centralized, self-interested groups, such as Athletic Trainers, that do not have our best interests in mind. It has already been evidenced, as in the ongoing case in Georgia, that licensure can bring with it many consequences. Pushing us closer to, or even completely under, the health care umbrella will bring health care status requirements and health care related problems. In fact, much of the bad publicity given to the personal training industry has come from the Athletic Training community. Just visit a university ATC website and look up their distinction between Athletic Trainers and Personal Trainers (Ohio State University website offers a good case in point)—it is most often derogatory towards our industry. The only way licensure will change that image is if these committees control the outcome. These are not the governing committees that we want to answer to.

With this big push to licensure for personal trainers, no one has been able to factually, statistically justify this move. In other words, where exactly is the real problem that is horrible enough to completely change our industry and possibly put thousands of trainers out of work? There are no supporting statistics. The problem is not that severe. If licensing and board examinations could fix such an alleged problem, then why are there an estimated 80,000 deaths a year in the United States directly due to medical malpractice?

Many support a standardization of qualifications in our industry. While this in and of itself can be a good idea, the methods to achieve it should not include forceful legislation, licensure, or the taking away of credibility of other more established organizations. The answer lies in education, not regulation. We accomplish this by continuing to educate the public about professional personal trainers, respected certifications, and safe and effective fitness training. We do this through public forums such as newspaper and magazine columns, public speaking, corporate networking, and empowering our own clients with a true knowledge of this industry. We also call, write and meet with our Senators and Representatives to educate them about our industry. In cases such as the pending legislation in Georgia, your action is needed now.

The mandate of education requirements is only one of many problems that will arise if Georgia leads the way in licensing personal trainers. Read the related articles on licensure to get a clear picture of many of the dangers of this move. Don't sit this one out on the hopes of getting "grandfathered" in thinking you won't be affected.

It has been demonstrated that if anyone is going to look out for our best interests, it is going to have to be us, starting with each and every individual. We must become educated about the dangers and fallacies of licensure and forceful standardizations and big business. We must be aware of, and warn each other about, legislation that will affect our industry—never keep it a secret. We must get involved with the democratic process by first becoming fully informed, and then making informed decisions based on likely outcomes and not idealistic hopes we are influenced into believing as facts.

If you are a trainer in Georgia, this is not over.
This Senator (Jones, 10th District) is bound and determined to put some form of this legislation through. YOU BETTER SPEAK UP NOW, before you know it, it may be too late!

Contact your senators who support this bad initiative:

Emanuel Jones,
10th302B Coverdell Office Bldg.
Atlanta, GA 30334
emanuel.jones@senate.ga.gov

Also supporting the bill:

Tommie Williams, 19th
Robert Brown, 26th
David Adelman, 42nd
John Douglas, 17th
Terrell Starr, 44th

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/senate/senatelist.htm

TELL THEM NO!

The Cold War Era: The Current State of the Personal Training Industry

The personal training industry is on fire right now. The field is splitting between two basic groups, accreditation and national board. It appears very much like it is nothing more than a war for political power and financial control over an industry that is not "owned" by any one group. It's like, all of the sudden, lack of regulation is a big problem and we have to do something about it. The topic of state legislated licensure has become very active, and this is one danger that we must ALL actively fight against. No matter what happens, we do not have to accept licensure as unchallengeable. Big changes are close at hand. The question is, what changes? How will they ultimately affect our careers?

In search of these and other answers I have questioned everyone in the industry that will talk to me--from prominent trainers and business owners, to representatives of certification organizations and the NBFE. Any personal trainer that is working in the field will be affected, possibly greatly, by the decisions these individuals are making. We deserve to be involved, to have answers, to be represented--but also to have a voice ourselves. When I started to question things that were happening in the industry, I was innocently looking for answers to questions and foreseeable problems. What I got was attacked or ignored.

An ISSA student emailed me a letter publicly posted by Sal Arria from September 2003. Interestingly enough, this pre-NBFE letter by Dr. Arria is stating that ISSA will seek NCCA accreditation because it would offer the public assurance. Now, in 2006, Arria and the ISSA are pushing their own NBFE initiative and are appearing to actively speak against the NCCA accreditation process as being insufficient in relation to the personal training industry.

What transpired between then and now? As we sit here in the middle of a great power struggle with the quality of our wonderful industry hanging in the balance, I wonder who to support in all of this mess. One characteristic of this controversy is that very few individuals are willing to talk. I have called countless industry leaders and owners of certification organizations, and there is such a feeling of secrecy and distrust. I frankly find this discomforting due to the fact that my occupation is in their hands! The help that we bring to hundreds of thousands of clients daily in the U.S. is in their hands! I think, as both sides of this war are claiming to represent us, we should be getting some answers.

First, it is my personal opinion based my own experience that the national board camp does not respond well to being questioned. I have phoned many industry leaders from both the NBFE and NCCA side of this battle. Every conversation with a supporter of the national board was more or less an unpleasant experience. When their viewpoints, agendas, or the possible consequences of their actions were questioned, they became angry, rude, mean, or downright evasive. I was even once told that no one really wanted to hear what I had to say, and that I should just go start my own blog, although "no one would read it." Well, here we are!

Conversely, every experience I had questioning individuals from the NCCA side of the battle was rather pleasant. Each individual was professional, and even under the pressure of some tough or personal questions, the response was never aggressive or defensive. This is my comparison based on speaking to 3 major representatives from each camp. I urge anyone who questions this to do their own research and draw your own conclusions, objectively of course.

In the absence of convincing answers from these self-appointed leaders, some of us have begun to examine this situation more closely. Taking a closer look at the NBFE, which has its origins with Sal Arria, co-founder of the ISSA, we have found many things that, in opinion, do not align well with their stated mission. In fairness, these questions have been presented to the NBFE and ISSA directly, in all cases they chose not to respond.

Problem #1: First, the NBFE has stated that it wants to create a national standard through a national board exam. Okay, but if it is truly a national standard, then why would it not be open to ALL personal trainers nationally? It is only open to trainers who hold certifications through organizations that have aligned themselves with the NBFE in what is called it's Affiliate Program. Therefore, trainers certified by other organizations, no matter how respectable, are not welcome. How does that look out for those trainers? These trainers have invested their time and money and hard work into a certification, only to be told they must gain a redundant certification PRIOR to taking the NBFE exam. Talk about getting charged 3 times for something! In conclusion, a true national standard with a mission to standardize the industry and raise the bar would be open to all trainers nationally.

Why did they choose to do it this way? Well, while I can not speak for them, we can only speculate. In much of the NBFE and ISSA material and press releases, there exists specific statements against NCCA accreditation, dismissing it as inefficient and insufficient as a standardizing agent in the fitness industry. All of the NBFE affiliates are not NCCA accredited. All of the NCCA accredited organizations, or those applying for accreditation, are not NBFE affiliates. Given these facts, it seems clear that there is not only a move to establish a national standard, but also to eliminate or devalue the existence of NCCA accreditation. It is the clearly separating factor between the sides of this battle.

Problem #2: The NBFE has its origins with Sal Arria, co-founder of the ISSA. Both the NBFE and the ISSA have spoken out in support of a national board specifically citing the, to quote a statement by the ISSA recently, "Slip shod practices by some industry certifying and training groups led to what some claimed were an abundance of less than qualified instructors." An NBFE statement also read, "However, the unfortunate reality is that today dozens of “Personal Trainer Certificates” are available for download from the Internet with no more required than the $39.95 fee. There are reportedly between 100 - 200 fitness certification companies offering education or 'personal trainer certifications.' Unqualified programs compromise the integrity of the industry, creating problems for qualified personal trainers, health clubs, insurance companies, and the general public." They have repeatedly stated they are out to get rid of the "hacks" in the industry.

Why does this seem to be a problem? Well, first of all, the ISSA is a non-supervised, mail-in/online test. The actual test is mailed to the recipient with the course study materials, and the student is given 2 years to complete and return the test. There is absolutely no way the ISSA can know with any certainty who is taking the test. It can be filled out by whomever, wherever, using whatever resources available in the free world, whenever, within two years! Now, I am not taking anything away from the phenomenal course ISSA has, just making a small point that its testing is completely unsupervised and unverifiable. So, if Sal Arria and the ISSA were really so concerned about unqualified trainers becoming certified, wouldn't it be a logical conclusion that they would first clean up their own act? How can they support the raising of standards on one hand, and yet profit from low standards on the other. You say we need to eliminate fraudulent and unscrupulous competitors, yet you have, to your profit, provided an avenue for this type of individual for decades. Is that like having your cake and eating it too? What is really your objective here?

Problem #3: The NBFE initially stated that it was not pursuing state licensure. In a recent interview on Fitness Business Radio, Sal Arria stated that he, and the NBFE were "completely neutral" on the issue of licensure, they had no stance. He stated that it was up to the trainers in the field to decide on that. Then, they put out a survey asking trainers if they agreed that a state license could do a myriad of good things for them.

Why is the NBFE taking a survey concerning trainer support of licensure? In their own words, it is to " provide objective information to state legislators based on public and professional opinion." Are you serious? There are a few problems if this 'data' is going to represent us in the field. This survey is not audited by any non-biased third party. It is not scientific. Trainers were questioned on important, industry changing issues without any primer of knowledge concerning the implications of the answers to their questions. The only advertising really done for the survey was within the NBFE affiliate organizations consisting of trainers who have been coached with pro-NBFE material for at least 2 or more years. In consideration of some 200,000 personal trainers in the U.S., how can the unscientific surveying of a small handful in comparison be used to represent the whole?

The biggest problem that many of us have come up with is that a national board can not be mandatory without some governmental involvement. Therefore, pushing for a national board exam, and professing to represent trainers everywhere, how can the NBFE not have a stance on licensure? It is one of the most important issues in the industry facing us, and is directly connected to the success of their agenda, and they have "no stance"? This does not make sense, really. Of course, when the issue of state licensure is involved, now we have much more to be concerned about. [Please review articles The Great Myths of Licensure and Licensure for Personal Trainers for the vast dangers associated with licensing The Trainer's Advocate]

Excerpt from letter from Sal Arria:

From: Dr. Sal Arria
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 1:55 PM

The International Sports Sciences Association (ISSA) is in the process of
applying for accreditation by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies
(NCCA) The NCCA is a division of the membership organization NOCA, the National
Organization for Competency Assurance who sets standards for a variety of
credentialing organizations.

Since 1988, ISSA's programs have always met the highest academic standards,
however since the influx of literally hundreds of fitness certification
organizations, the public and the media is concerned about the quality of all
these programs.

ISSA, in an effort to assure the public and it's members that our
programs exceed the industry standards, is in the process of obtaining
accreditation by NCCA.

NCCA Accreditation

IHRSA, the International Health, Racquet & Sportsclub Association has announced 10 certifications that are either NCCA accredited, or are in the process of applying. IHRSA

Those certification organizations currently accredited are:

American College of Sports Medicine
American Council on Exercise
National Academy of Sports Medicine
National Council of Strength & Fitness
National Federation of Professional Trainers
National Strength & Conditioning Association

Those who have stated intent to apply are:

National Exercise & Sports Trainers Association
Pilates Method Alliance
The Cooper Institute
International Fitness Professionals Association
National Exercise Trainers Association


A little history and other info:
In 2005, IHRSA set out to raise the standards of personal training nationwide by making the recommendation that its member clubs only hire trainers who hold at least one certification from an NCCA accredited organization.
NCCA accreditation is only granted to certifying organizations that adhere to their strict criteria for certification-granting testing. Among the criteria, an organization must use a required independent exam validation process, such as Schroeder Measurement Technologies or Thomson Prometric. They must also put in place and prove enforcement of policies on cheating, proper test environment, a supervised examination delivery, third party "grading", and absolutely NO "teaching to the test".

It should be noted that NCCA accreditation is the accreditation of many professional certifying fields such as, to name just a few:

emergency medical technicians
nursing
athletic trainers
radiography
sonography
orthotics and prosthetics
opticianry
nutrition
and even chiropractic!

For a complete list of NCCA accredited fields, please visit here: http://www.noca.org/ncca/accredorg.htm

Chiropractic is of interest here. The American Chiropractic Neurology Board earned NCCA accreditation (ACNB article) , and the American Chiropractic Association had directed that its Specialty Council Certification Boards pursue NOCA/NCCA accreditation. According to the ACA, "This accreditation ensures the public and all professions that a certification board represents the highest quality and standards in a discipline."

It seems interesting that the NBFE would appear to take such a strong stance against NCCA accreditation when Sal Arria (NBFE leader) is a Doctor of Chiropractic, a field that obviously recognizes NCCA as a gold standard for certifying board accreditation. If it is good enough for the American Chiropractic Association, why isn't it good enough for personal trainers?

However, NCCA is just as hailed in personal training as it is in the chiropractic field. Ace has a good description of the accreditation process, along with a comprehensive explanation of why it is important to the personal training industry, ACE NCCA. The National Federation of Professional Trainers (NFPT), an NCCA accredited trainer certifying organization, also has a position on the issue:

"The National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA), is a 3rd party governing (accrediting) authority over certifying agencies whose governance requirements in part, include proof of the independent development of standardized minimum competency exams of all certifying organizations it governs. Valid exam development starts with the clear definition of the scope of practice. Then, an unbiased 3rd party psychometric company creates an industry survey-based validated exam for that particular scope of practice. Since the same exact protocols are required of all independent certifying agencies by NCCA, the resulting exams are overwhelmingly similar. Hence, widespread, universal testing standards currently exist among NCCA accredited certifiers. This clearly identified NCCA accrediting body is experienced, respected, and recognized by all informed allied health professionals. Relationships between personal trainers and allied health professionals who have confidence in NCCA's governing ability is finally possible RIGHT NOW.

Confidence in NCCA may more logically result in widespread patient referrals for fitness training [since professionals in these health care fields often hold specialization certifications which are NCCA accredited]. NCCA protects vocations from government regulation indirectly through a legislative sunrise Review process that identifies NCCA to legislators as an acceptable self-governing standard This process may likely be the reason there has been no legislative involvement in the personal training field.

The incidences of trainer-client injury-related law suites have been grossly overstated over the past two decades when in fact, personal trainers are being offered Million per claim professional liability insurance policies for an annual premium of as little as 0. Moreover, where NCCA is concerned, reduced professional liability insurance rates are already being offered to health clubs who staff their facilities with trainers possessing at least one accredited certification. With risk levels acceptable by those with the greatest exposure (Insurance Companies), how do we then justify the sense of urgency concerning the purported risk to public health and safety that does not exist? Misinformation can hurt our industry."

IHRSA, Looking out for the Fitness Industry

IHRSA has been hard at work monitoring legislation that would hurt the fitness industry. In Pennsylvania, taxes on health club services were proposed and IHRSA lead the fight. In the end, a 6% sales tax on health club usage was defeated (IHRSA PA tax).

IHRSA is also sponsoring a nationwide push for legislation concerning corporate wellness, the Work Health Improvement Program (WHIP ACT). The backing of legislation that promotes the fitness industry and health and wellness of Americans by allowing deductions for companies who subsidize health club usage for their employees is a wonderful cause! IHRSA monitors legislation in all 50 states for any proposed bills that will affect the fitness industry. It has also been stated recently that IHRSA has taken to monitoring state and federal legislation for moves involving the personal training industry, to protect trainers from unfair legislation.

In addition to this, the PHIT Act (Personal Health Investment Today) is being presented. According to IHRSA, "The PHIT Act, introduced in June, would permit individuals to pay for certain designated exercise-related products and services with pretax dollars invested in medical flexible-spending accounts (FSAs), health-savings accounts (HSAs), medical-savings accounts (MSAs), and/or medical-reimbursement arrangements."

In the fight against preventable injury and disease in this country, IHRSA is taking major strides towards the victory. Their efforts alone have proven that they are worthy of membership and support.

Licensure for Personal Trainers

Licensing of personal trainers is a hot topic these days. It is important to understand the full implications of supporting licensure before any decision is made to support it. Licensure may sound appealing when looked at from simply one perspective. However, there are very real and likely consequences that will accompany such a major shift in your industry—consequences that may adversely affect you. Some of you may even be put out of work by such a move.

While some believe that a state license will make the personal trainer appear more credible in the public, it is important to ask yourself if you feel less than professional or credible now. In my pursuits as a certified personal trainer, I have not encountered any obstacles to gaining public acceptance or respect as a professional. In truth, the average client does not even know the real difference between a license and a certification--they are more concerned in your knowledge, skills, and abilities to provide them with the service that they seek. Seeking credibility and a professional acceptance is something that can and should be pursued through your own efforts; it is not something that will magically appear with a license. Knowing your job well and doing it with complete dedication, passion, and professionalism will suffice in producing a wonderful public image for yourself and our industry as a whole.

As a certified trainer, I have had phenomenal success in networking with, getting referrals from, and even gaining clients themselves from within the allied health care and medical professions. As certified fitness trainers, you currently hold the ability to market to, network with, and work for anyone out there, including health care professionals. I have even achieved a trusted relationship with state worker’s compensation agencies, receiving payment to a client for sessions invoiced with me. There are no mechanisms or obstacles preventing anyone from achieving this level of respect and trust in the industry as it currently is. I have, and have had, clients who were M.D.s, urologists, general practitioners, attorneys, prosecutors, state officials, police officers, stock brokers, and on and on. I have often trained the spouses and children of these professionals also. If you are not achieving this now, do not think that a license will suddenly make this happen. A license would not remove any obstacle or negative image from you as a trainer. I can tell you that a single board examination or license will not raise an eyebrow on someone who has spent 8 years or more in college and graduate school to gain their credentials. It will not change your skill level or ability to gain clientele. Those achievements are up to you and are completely at your access NOW.

One approach to the subject of licensing is to suggest that a national board standard should be used in the criteria to obtain a license. While this in itself sounds reasonable, the facts remain that: we do not currently have licensing, licensing may not be what is best for our industry, and finally, we do not have to accept it as our only option. So, to put it into perspective, this approach borders on being a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we blindly accept that licensing is a mandatory upcoming event, then of course we would support a national board for that licensing. However, licensing is NOT at this time a mandatory upcoming event. You can still support a national board, but don’t forget that you do not have to accept licensure as your only option. Of course, without licensure, a national board can not be mandatory industry wide.

There are many great certifying organizations out there, as well as some not so great. One of the great things about our industry is the diversity of it. While some have worked to expose and capitalize on the bad side of this aspect, the good side is that we all have options, and they are very good options. There are certifying organizations that have been the gold standard in university programs, athletic programs, and allied healthcare fields for years. These can not be denied or discredited. While they all may differ in approach, it has been found that they do contain a standard core of requirements and objectives common amongst them.

The biggest argument that seems to induce the trend toward licensure is the argument that different states will mandate different rules and standards for trainers. While this is a valid concern, once again licensure does not have to be the answer to this problem. This problem can be approached and resolved by any group representing the best interests of the personal training industry. Remember, industry problems are better solved when the results are inclusive, rather than exclusive. In other words, you do not want to fix a problem by taking away from yourself when there are other options. This comes back to the fact that licensure is a dangerous path to take, and would likely result in loss for many in the industry. Examine the options more closely. As constituents in a democratic society, we are free to be involved and heard at any level of government and legislation involving our industry. This can be done as individuals, or as groups representing local interests. But it should always be done with the best end result in mind. Licensure is not the safest path for our industry.

We have all met the so called “bad trainers” in the field. I personally have worked with some myself. Surprisingly, I have found that many of them hold a bachelor’s or higher in exercise science or physiology, and are certified by reputable organizations. No amount of education, certifications, or especially licensing will change this. Recently, a client informed me that her physician told her that her visceral fat was actually broken muscle tissue that can not be repaired and will never go away. Of course, most of us know that fat cells are fat cells, and muscle cells are muscle cells—one can not change into the other. This physician is licensed and board registered, yet I would say he shows some level of incompetence. If she began to develop insulin resistance, where would he look first? Let’s not forget the fact that an estimated 80,000 deaths occur each year in this country at the hands of licensed, board registered health care professionals. Licensing certainly does not eliminate this problem. Once again, the end result would not be worth the dangers and loss associated with licensure. It just simply is not true.

Licensing has never led to a higher income for the practitioner in any field. In fact, it has been shown to limit consumer choice, raise consumer cost, raise practitioner costs, and ultimately limit practitioner mobility. All things we don’t suffer currently. Physicians actually are doing some work at 1/3 of the pay they previously have performed the same service for, all due to government mandates through licensing.

Licensing in nearly all currently licensed occupations requires such mandates as formal schooling completion, experience, current citizenship, and completion of a state examination. It is hard to believe that our industry would end up any different, especially with recent events of legislation pointing towards these very outcomes. Licensing will, without a doubt, have one affect—it will restrict entry and reduce competition. What we give up for that will far outweigh any benefits we receive.

Even when we examine the possibility of insurance companies and medical payment agencies validating payment to licensed trainers, we must realize that it would require first a license. It is also true that these agencies will not view a mere board exam as an exhibition of competency. How could they? They remit payment to practitioners now that have ALL met minimum education requirements—physical therapists, athletic trainers, physicians, etc.—to obtain their license. Do you think they would change this position for us? Once again, licensure is not the answer. Some of you will support such a notion that would ultimately put you out of work, legally. Ask anyone who deals with insurance companies on a daily basis how they feel about dealing with them. The answer is unanymous, it is horrible. You will work for the insurance company, not the client, and they will tell you how much you will get paid and how long you will work with the client. Those are the facts.

It is my one and only intent to inform others of the historical and current dangers synonymous with pursuing licensure. It is a very dangerous and self-defeating move to invite government regulation into your industry or your career. There are other ways currently at your disposal to obtain all proposed benefits of licensure, without any of the associated costs or losses. We must work against licensure as it will literally destroy the industry we know and love. This is of immediate concern if you do not hold a degree in the field, at least at the bachelor’s level.

What Can I Do?

When I began speaking out against legislation and licensure for personal training, I was accused (by those lobbying FOR it) of not being proactive. Interestingly enough, speaking out, blogging, making phone calls, emailing, and calling Senators and Representatives, all seemed like proactive activities to me. They just didn't like what I had to say.

Likewise, when I began to question the leaders of new initiatives, I was met with a surprising amount of aggression. One group in particular told me, rather than answering my questions, that it was "just wrong" to question them! Now, if that isn't a big red flag, I don't know what is.

As for working to raise the bar of personal training, the answer lies in education, not regulation. We accomplish this by continuing to educate the public about professional personal trainers, respected and accredited certifications, and safe and effective fitness training. We do this through public forums such as newspaper and magazine columns, public speaking, corporate networking, and empowering our own clients with a true knowledge of this industry. We also, (when legislation is proposed in our own state) call, write and meet with our Senators and Representatives to educate them about our industry. Always stay within your scope of practice and knowledge, and strive to be the best that you can be.




What you can do to fight unfair legislation is--first and foremost--be informed! Question things that people tell you, especially if it involves something that will affect your career. Watch this blog site, do your own research, look into the stance of organizations like the ACSM, NSCA, ACE, IHRSA, NBFE, etc. Learn everything you can learn about this industry and about how government really messes things up when they regulate the occupations of others.

Once you are armed with the facts, begin speaking out against any expansion of government into our livelihoods! Tell your fellow trainers, talk to others, and become active in discussion forums and blogs, and MONITOR YOUR STATE GOVERNMENT! If someone comes to your state lobbying for such nonsense, make sure your voice is heard! Call and email your representatives and tell them NO! Take any steps you can think of to head off the horrible onset of government regulation. Contact other trainers everywhere and tell them what is going on! Get the word out--the right people will hear it and spring into action.

It has been demonstrated that if anyone is going to look out for our best interests, it is going to have to be us, starting with each and every individual. We must become educated about the dangers and fallacies of licensure, and forceful standardizations and big business. We must be aware of, and warn each other about, legislation that will affect our industry—never keep it a secret. We must get involved with the democratic process by first becoming fully informed, and then making informed decisions based on likely outcomes and not idealistic hopes we are influenced into believing as facts. Lastly, we act on those decisions by making sure that our voices are heard.

ACE's Graham Melstrand Talks About the State of the Industry

Graham Melstrand, a leader with the American Council on Exercise (ACE), speaks about the state of the industry, NCCA Accreditation, 3rd party reimbursement, and licensure for personal trainers.

This is an excellent interview and is worth a listen!

http://www.fitnessbusinessradio.com/index.php/72

How Funny the Polls Can Be!

A current survey by the NBFE is obviously, in the opinion of many, suspected to be slanted. The NBFE has recently released this survey to gather statistics to represent opinion in the personal training community concerning state licensure and board standardization. These “statistics” will be, by their own words, presented to state governments in connection with discussions and/or legislation concerning forcing personal trainers to obtain a state license to practice. Upon examination of the NBFE survey, one will find that the questions are set up to show state licensure in a good light. The NBFE claims to not be promoting state licensure, yet state licensure for personal trainers is the explicitly supported focus in 10 out of the 13 questions on the survey, with the remaining 3 questions leading to indirect support of licensure. Also, why are they "surveying" about licensure anyway? Perhaps to garnish some unscientific support data that would allow them to lobby for licensure while saying it is what "the trainers in the trenches" want. I mean, just perhaps.

Now, I have debated this topic with staunch NBFE supporters and have been accused of 'reading into' the survey and seeing what I want to see. The fact remains that the questions are written in the positive sense concerning licensure. Not one question reads like, "Do you agree that licensure would raise your costs and make practicing your profession more difficult?" thereby pointing to some negative consequence of licensure. Instead, it is, "Licensing of personal trainers will increase the perception of professionalism of personal trainers in the public eye." Licensure, throughout the survey, is never connected to any negative consequence, only positive.

Another point to note is that the advertising of the survey was primarily limited to trainers from within certification organizations that are listed as NBFE affiliates. This means that the majority of the trainers surveyed have more than likely been coached with pro-NBFE material for 2 to 3 years now!

Over 100 informed, high level fitness professionals and decision-makers as well as insurance company reps, health club chain reps, etc., all met at an open panel discussion at the Club Industry event in late Sept, 2005, to include NBFE reps, and it was unanimously and overwhelmingly agreed that licensure would hurt our industry. NBFE reps made no apposing comments. The NBFE obviously is not taking this into consideration.

This raises the question, “Is the NBFE survey a push poll?” A “push poll” is an unscientific poll or survey used to elicit a desired response. Polls such as these damage the democratic process by delivering a seriously flawed and biased picture of the situation. This inaccurate information could then be used to manipulate the writing of legislation. In other words, people could be guided into supporting something that may actually be against their own best interests? My answer to that is, yes, people can be mislead into hurting themselves. It happens everyday.

The Personal Trainer's Advocate

Dedicated to the protection of the personal training industry. Working to inform, protect, and represent personal trainers against the hostile push for regulation and legislation by self-serving pressure groups.

It is not the intent of The Trainer's Advocate to attack or oppose any one group or individual for any personal reasons. The Trainer's Advocate opposes the legislation of regulation and licensure in the personal training industry, and will only oppose initiatives and agendas that work toward, directly or indirectly, those unwanted results.