The Trainer's Advocate

Information and Perspective regarding the dangers of licensure and the questionable motives of national boards. Contact me at: thetrainersadvocate@yahoo.com

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

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
.

8 Comments:

At 9:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

First off in regards to ISSA and others I hold both, NFPT and ISSA the initial NFPT test although supervised was easy anyone could read the book and take the test and get 75%, the advanced ISSA courses although unsupervised are tests made up of essay guestions and hands on working life study problems that have to be signed off on thier is no way someone that does not know this subject can pass or fake these tests.I like both agencies and am proud to be Certified by both the NFPT and ISSA but come on lets talk about the true problem not the bickering of different view points.When I got into this business I agreed with most of NFPT trainers and held a negative view of the NBFE and licencure, but now after being involved in the industry and having clients come to me for help after paying good money to get hurt by unqualified trainers I myself am for the inititative or at least having the NCCA tighten its belt and become much stricter, I have no problem spending another fee to take another test and prove I am qualified ( as long as they do not get ridiculus and demand a man with 20 yrs in the health and fitness industry with a history of success in the fields of Rehab and Special Populations go back to school at 49 yrs of age and get a degree in fitness that would be ungodly ridiculus)!
Charlie

 
At 10:50 PM, Blogger The Trainer's Advocate said...

Charlie, thank you for your input.

First, let me sat that this is not an NFPT vs. ISSA issue. Nor is this a debate over the level of difficulty of ISSA's exam. Yes it is a tough exam. No, it is not verifiable. It can be the hardest exam in the world, but who is taking it? People seem to really get stuck on arguing the difficulty of the exam when that is not an issue, it is an issue of being able to verify who took the test and how they took it.

As for supporting an initiative, it is noble to support improving our industry. I am all for finding productive, beneficial ways to improve the personal training industry. However, government licensure is not an improvement. When someone speaks of a true problem in the industry, it always ends up being just a viewpoint, no one has stepped forth with convincing evidence that personal triaining in its current state has posed a significant enough public risk to support a terrible move like licensure. For another view on occupational licensure and its inherent problems, see this article:
Occupational licensing

and:

http://trainersadvocate.blogspot.com/

 
At 10:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that an unscrupulous idiot could lie and have his friend take the exam, really though at 500 for a cert how many times is this going to happen and also how long is the idiot going to last in the business. Its kinda self governing, I know this is not about NFPT or ISSA I understand the issue quite well but I had to answer the statement of difficulty, I have learned more thru this testing procedure than any other type of study.With essay guestions it really does not matter if you take the test or answer the guestions with an open book or an expert standing next to you, the learning curve with essay questions is way higher than reading a book and answering multiple choice questions that said as for supporting an initiative, as I said I support the NBFE and thier attempt to provide a stronger level of control in this industry, The NCCA had and still has an opportunity to become a stronger advocate for change but they sit and spend all thier time trying to fight with the creators of the NBFE.
Come on People you and I are qualified and will this bite us initially yes but what will come out of it will be a higher standard and more respect in the Medical arena where we all should be heading.
High levels of incompetence leading to injuries have me on the offensive these are not opinions they are fact I and many others in this industry have seen to many outdated and injury promoting training techniques used.
I want new trainers to have to prove thier competence, and to be taught to dstay within thier level of competence.
Then maybe the insurance and medical proffession will finally see the need for exercise and the use of CFPT's in the prevention and curing of medical problems and then we will all see medical costs come down.
Thanks for the debate we are both kinda on the same page except I have been pushed to accept something that maybe will in the short term be detremental to our industry but I believe in the long run it will be of benefit to all qualified trainers.
Charlie

 
At 9:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who cares how tough someone's test is or whatever, the point is that someone is pushing for licensure with a bunch of promises that will just not come true. That is the problem here. Arguing that licensing will make all trainers great trainers and all bad trainers go away is bull@#%$. Pure and simple.
J.T.

 
At 10:08 PM, Blogger The Trainer's Advocate said...

Charlie and JT, thanks for your comments.

As for the test validity, I think we both see our points and I'll not spend anymore time away from the real issue--the dangers of licensure.

I believe that licensure is being pursued. I believe that it is being done in a somewhat secretive and underhanded way. I believe that a few people will profit greatly from it. I believe that it is ultimately bad for the industry.

I have made several cases against the assertions that you put forth that: #1 licensure will eliminate/greatly reduce bad trainers and public risk, and #2 licensure will gain us more respect from the medical community. These promised returns are not true enough to justify what we would give up.
Great Myths of Licensure
I have also cited other works that deal with the pitfalls of licensure such as: How Medical Boards Ruin Healthcare and Occupational Licensing

I challenge the supporters or believers of licensure to show, statistically or factually:

How licensure will remove, and not protect, incompetent trainers, in light of 1.5 million people harmed and 80,000 killed each year at the hands of licensed health practitioners?;

What obstacle licensure would remove from building respect and relationships with insurance companies and health professionals, and why some trainers and facility owners are successfully doing this now with full bargaining power and no government dictates?;

How licensure has ever increased the quality of service or results of an industry? (Several studies have examined the effect of license requirements on performance in occupations like dentists and teachers. Conclusion? there is little to show that occupational regulation has a major effect on the quality of service received by consumers.);

and

What is licensure going to do for us that we can not do for ourselves?!!

While I have yet to see the waves of injured clients overflowing in the streets, I do sympathize that there are many improvements that can be made in our industry.

However, if you take a look around on a national level, you will see that a great number of wellness and total health facilities are beginning to pop up. Partnerships between physicians, chiropractors, dietitians and fitness trainers are becoming more popular as business models. IHRSA is pushing the WHIP Act and PHIT Act through congress. We are moving in the right direction now. Without giving up anything.

Each and every practitioner is obligated to choose with whom they will network with. This is how things get done. Licensure is not going to create an automated system of trainer choosing, where you can just throw clients at a licensed trainer with full faith and no reference. It will still be done, as it is now, on a first name basis, only with a load of regulatory problems and severely limited entry into the field. As a full time trainer, I for one do not feel a need to limit my competition via government leverage. Do you?

The answer lies in education, not regulation.

 
At 7:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

it is funny to note that in charlie's comments he complains about all of the incompetent trainers and unqualified trainers being a problem and hurting people and we need someone to keep them out, but when addressing the ISSA's mail in trainers, it becomes a small problem, insignificant, oh, they don't last long and it is self governing.

charlie, i have to agree with your last point, it is self governing, which means WE DON'T NEED A LICENSE TO KEEP THEM OUT!

 
At 11:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I’ve always had a passion for fitness. I benefited from exercise as an athlete in high school, as a Marine during operations in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti again as a division 1 athlete and today as a disabled veteran and health and fitness consultant. It is a passion that has led to a rewarding career. I have watched the personal training industry rise in popularity since the 80’s and now reluctantly see it suffering due to corporate greed and lack of consumer awareness.

In 1998 I began writing articles regarding the explosion of mail-in and fly-by-night certification associations. I worked to formulate a third party verification association whose mission was to verify the credentials of personal trainers based on the combination of their certification, education and experiences. Fundamentally it seemed like a logical and effective solution for our industry. However, I was quickly reminded that money is what drives most people, not principal. It was quickly made clear to me that a third party verification association was not what the industry needed nor what the big certification associations wanted. After all, they would be judged against one another and they did not want that to happen.

Since then, I have been personal training, managing health clubs, directing fitness departments and have started a few other fitness industry related ventures. I have sat back quietly working within the industry to broaden public awareness about personal training, the industry and the issues.

A growing number of fitness professionals now understand the vital need for us to discuss personal training with a bit more depth. Our discussions at the major industry conferences has allowed me to share the guts of this industry, according to my and many others perceptions, with the hopes you will take away some useful information to better serve your facility, trainers, and ultimately members.

Should Personal Trainers Have a National Board Examination?
No! This idea, as presented by the National Board of Fitness Examiners (NBFE), is in theory a great idea. It demonstrates that all personal trainers have a minimum level of knowledge and have passed a unified board examination. Here is where the theory is clashed by reality.

The NBFE does not recognize the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) or the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) as affiliates whose trainers can sit in on their “board exam”. This was the first red flag since the ACSM and NSCA have perhaps the most stringent testing requirements of any organizations within the industry. Furthermore, they conduct their own peer reviewed research at the university level on a global scale and make their findings available to all members. Why would the NBFE not grant ACSM and NSCA trainers the opportunity to take their a national board exam?

The second red flag that made me question the intent of the NBFE surfaced as I sat in one of their day long board examination preparation courses. I was shocked to find the content presented was almost identical to that on the existing leading organizations certification exams. Why would the NBFE want to replicate the content a trainer is already expected to know?

The third red flag surfaced when I realized the founder and several of the board members are also the founders and board members of several of the certification associations whose testing and examination practices lacked the primary elements needed to ensure the integrity of their trainers knowledge. Most important of these measures is that the person taking the exam be proctored and secondly that there be a practical component to the exam to ensure the trainers can demonstrate proper form and training technique. Why would someone create an organization whose purpose was to ensure trainers took the types of exams that they themselves do not administer?

The fourth red flag was the realization that many of the affiliate organizations of the NBFE had not obtained accreditation through the National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA) whose mission is to “ensure the health, welfare, and safety of the public through the accreditation of a variety of certification programs and organizations that assess professional competency.” Why wouldn’t the NBFE affiliates just obtain NOCA accreditation to ensure their standards are up to par with the leading organizations?

Making sure all trainers have the same basic level of knowledge and ability is vital to the success and credibility of our industry. However, several organizations are already successfully doing this. What the NBFE is doing is not necessary since it only duplicates what already exists and will end up costing trainers an additional $300-$500. Trainers already spend enough money maintaining their certification and could better spend their hard earned money attending continuing education seminars that enhance their knowledge rather than duplicating information.

More importantly, the NBFE has also cautiously posed the argument in support of obtaining board certification in order to enable trainers to receive insurance reimbursement. If this is their goal than the proposed national board would only serve to propel the personal training industry into the hands of the seemingly inefficient insurance arena which is currently handling its own crisis as hospitals close and doctors leave the medical industry due to less than stellar reimbursement policies and practices.

Looking back at the last two decades in this industry, one thing is certain. Personal trainer certification associations are here to stay. They all have their value and each focuses on a different and important component that will serve to make the trainer more valuable to his/her client, gym, club or studio.

What our industry should do is insist that all associations obtain accreditation through NOCA. This will set a minimum standard while also respecting the individual niches of each certification association. We don’t need to recreate the wheel; we need to more effectively use the one we have.

 
At 11:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I’ve always had a passion for fitness. I benefited from exercise as an athlete in high school, as a Marine during operations in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti again as a division 1 athlete and today as a disabled veteran and health and fitness consultant. It is a passion that has led to a rewarding career. I have watched the personal training industry rise in popularity since the 80’s and now reluctantly see it suffering due to corporate greed and lack of consumer awareness.

In 1998 I began writing articles regarding the explosion of mail-in and fly-by-night certification associations. I worked to formulate a third party verification association whose mission was to verify the credentials of personal trainers based on the combination of their certification, education and experiences. Fundamentally it seemed like a logical and effective solution for our industry. However, I was quickly reminded that money is what drives most people, not principal. It was quickly made clear to me that a third party verification association was not what the industry needed nor what the big certification associations wanted. After all, they would be judged against one another and they did not want that to happen.

Since then, I have been personal training, managing health clubs, directing fitness departments and have started a few other fitness industry related ventures. I have sat back quietly working within the industry to broaden public awareness about personal training, the industry and the issues.

A growing number of fitness professionals now understand the vital need for us to discuss personal training with a bit more depth. Our discussions at the major industry conferences has allowed me to share the guts of this industry, according to my and many others perceptions, with the hopes you will take away some useful information to better serve your facility, trainers, and ultimately members.

Should Personal Trainers Have a National Board Examination?
No! This idea, as presented by the National Board of Fitness Examiners (NBFE), is in theory a great idea. It demonstrates that all personal trainers have a minimum level of knowledge and have passed a unified board examination. Here is where the theory is clashed by reality.

The NBFE does not recognize the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) or the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) as affiliates whose trainers can sit in on their “board exam”. This was the first red flag since the ACSM and NSCA have perhaps the most stringent testing requirements of any organizations within the industry. Furthermore, they conduct their own peer reviewed research at the university level on a global scale and make their findings available to all members. Why would the NBFE not grant ACSM and NSCA trainers the opportunity to take their a national board exam?

The second red flag that made me question the intent of the NBFE surfaced as I sat in one of their day long board examination preparation courses. I was shocked to find the content presented was almost identical to that on the existing leading organizations certification exams. Why would the NBFE want to replicate the content a trainer is already expected to know?

The third red flag surfaced when I realized the founder and several of the board members are also the founders and board members of several of the certification associations whose testing and examination practices lacked the primary elements needed to ensure the integrity of their trainers knowledge. Most important of these measures is that the person taking the exam be proctored and secondly that there be a practical component to the exam to ensure the trainers can demonstrate proper form and training technique. Why would someone create an organization whose purpose was to ensure trainers took the types of exams that they themselves do not administer?

The fourth red flag was the realization that many of the affiliate organizations of the NBFE had not obtained accreditation through the National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA) whose mission is to “ensure the health, welfare, and safety of the public through the accreditation of a variety of certification programs and organizations that assess professional competency.” Why wouldn’t the NBFE affiliates just obtain NOCA accreditation to ensure their standards are up to par with the leading organizations?

Making sure all trainers have the same basic level of knowledge and ability is vital to the success and credibility of our industry. However, several organizations are already successfully doing this. What the NBFE is doing is not necessary since it only duplicates what already exists and will end up costing trainers an additional $300-$500. Trainers already spend enough money maintaining their certification and could better spend their hard earned money attending continuing education seminars that enhance their knowledge rather than duplicating information.

More importantly, the NBFE has also cautiously posed the argument in support of obtaining board certification in order to enable trainers to receive insurance reimbursement. If this is their goal than the proposed national board would only serve to propel the personal training industry into the hands of the seemingly inefficient insurance arena which is currently handling its own crisis as hospitals close and doctors leave the medical industry due to less than stellar reimbursement policies and practices.

Looking back at the last two decades in this industry, one thing is certain. Personal trainer certification associations are here to stay. They all have their value and each focuses on a different and important component that will serve to make the trainer more valuable to his/her client, gym, club or studio.

What our industry should do is insist that all associations obtain accreditation through NOCA. This will set a minimum standard while also respecting the individual niches of each certification association. We don’t need to recreate the wheel; we need to more effectively use the one we have.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home