Top 10 Ways to Avoid Giving a Client Rhabdo

[Trevor Shaw]

Well the point of my post was more that across the board, uneducated trainers who only learn to train people in 2 days are dangerous. Not that Crossfit level 1’s are solely responsible for rhabdomyelisis, nor that its their fault for the lack of education they receive. I believe these trainers are more dangerous though because their main technique is extremely high intensity training and they have no scientific / functional evaluation methodology to prescreen their clients. My point was also that these trainers should demand more out of their $1000. It’s not their fault they aren’t getting more, but they also need to recognize this and demand more.

You proved my point by stating "it's just lifting". By taking such a simplistic approach you drove home my point of trainers not getting it. If its “just lifting” then everyone studying physical therapy, exercise physiology, along with advanced degree’s in strength and conditioning are wasting their time. Ever wonder what separates your local YMCA /crossfit trainer from the guy who trains a Professional / Olympic team? The separating factor is education in the area of kinesiology, anatomy, physiology, and exercise principles my friend.

Over simplifying the squat was another error. Now sure, if you are training an elite athlete just tell them to squat. But, there is no way a weekend course can teach you to safely deal with joint dysfunction, muscular imbalances, altered firing patterns, poor core stabilization and lack of overall conditioning that makes up 99% of issue seen in the people seeking trainers.

Trainers need to know how to successfully identify and deal with these issues, along with effectively adapt and progress exercises for the people who fall into these categories. If they could do this you would not hear cross fit associated with rhabdo as much as you do, and you would see Crossfit Certs earn much more respect on the national / global level as strength and conditioning EXPERTS and not just trainers.

[Robert D Taylor Jr]

Originally Posted by Trevor Shaw

Well the point of my post was more that across the board, uneducated trainers who only learn to train people in 2 days are dangerous. Not that Crossfit level 1’s are solely responsible for rhabdomyelisis, nor that its their fault for the lack of education they receive. I believe these trainers are more dangerous though because their main technique is extremely high intensity training and they have no scientific / functional evaluation methodology to prescreen their clients. My point was also that these trainers should demand more out of their $1000. It’s not their fault they aren’t getting more, but they also need to recognize this and demand more.

You proved my point by stating "it's just lifting". By taking such a simplistic approach you drove home my point of trainers not getting it. If its “just lifting” then everyone studying physical therapy, exercise physiology, along with advanced degree’s in strength and conditioning are wasting their time. Ever wonder what separates your local YMCA /crossfit trainer from the guy who trains a Professional / Olympic team? The separating factor is education in the area of kinesiology, anatomy, physiology, and exercise principles my friend.

Over simplifying the squat was another error. Now sure, if you are training an elite athlete just tell them to squat. But, there is no way a weekend course can teach you to safely deal with joint dysfunction, muscular imbalances, altered firing patterns, poor core stabilization and lack of overall conditioning that makes up 99% of the people seeking trainers.

Trainers need to know how to successfully identify and deal with these issues, along with effectively adapt and progress exercises for the people who fall into these categories. If they could do this you would not hear cross fit associated with rhabdo as much as you do, and you would see Crossfit Certs earn much more respect on the national / global level as strength and conditioning experts and not just trainers.

I actually agree with some of that. CrossFit attached itself to rhabdo as a way of making its adherents aware of the risks. Marathoning etc has not. This exposed CF to tripe like what you are peddling.

Your post is an excellent example of what happens when someone has an overinflated view of education. My friend it is just lifting, running rowing etc. Millions of people do these things without help from CSCS or CF level I II or anyone else. I suspect that everything you learned in the classroom looked way different in the field. Most things in the strength and conditioning field, I am sure, are best learned through experience, fair enough through an EXPERIENCED not neccesarily "educated" coach.

I don't neccesarily disagree with the idea that a weekend cert doesn't make me a trainer. I'm not convinced that a degree does either. I expect any respect I would have for either would come from what they know and how they present it, vice how they acquired the knowledge.

[Trevor Shaw]

Seems in the end we are going to have to agree to disagree. Although I'm with you on 'experience' being a key factor.
Good debate bro.

[Joshua Murphy]

The best discussion off a necropost that I have seen in a while. Thanks guys.

[Ahmik Jones]

Originally Posted by Trevor Shaw

Over simplifying the squat was another error. Now sure, if you are training an elite athlete just tell them to squat. But, there is no way a weekend course can teach you to safely deal with joint dysfunction, muscular imbalances, altered firing patterns, poor core stabilization and lack of overall conditioning that makes up 99% of issue seen in the people seeking trainers.

Trainers need to know how to successfully identify and deal with these issues, along with effectively adapt and progress exercises for the people who fall into these categories. If they could do this you would not hear cross fit associated with rhabdo as much as you do, and you would see Crossfit Certs earn much more respect on the national / global level as strength and conditioning EXPERTS and not just trainers.

I would disagree a little here. Of course, a novice trainer will have issues dealing with clients with issues such as the ones you describe above, but in my experience, the CSCS's I have dealt with did not address these issues correctly. I have seen them waste a client's time with isolation movements trying to address "muscle imbalances" when they could be addressing all the problems you mention above with supervised squatting, and slow progression. It has been my experience that supervised performance of the lifts leads to much more effective and efficient rehabilitation than what I have seen from the conventional "experts" in this field. This has always been this divide between the CrossFit and the CSCS community, and this is where I think CrossFit gives you a better starting point. Not that an inexperienced practitioner in either realm would be the best person to deal with an injured client. Experience is far more important than either background. CrossFit offers an excellent opportunity to get experience training every day people that people training collegiate or professional athletes often never experience. Of course not all CrossFit trainers are good, but there are many out there who are excellent.

I happen to have a background in anatomy and physiology that I would say goes beyond that of your typical CSCS. However, I would say that the knowledge I gained from the CrossFit community and my experience are far more imortant than my degrees.

CrossFit is working toward national accreditation. That is why there is a test at the certs with a substantial failure rate. CrossFit's ideas thrust them into the spotlight before they had a chance to build the infrastructure, but they are well on their way to catching up.

[Katherine Derbyshire]

Speaking to this from the perspective of the trainee, rather than the trainer, it seems to me that there's a fundamental divide between CF and the professional training community.

Are the fundamental movements of Crossfit part of the normal spectrum of human movement, or not?

If they are, then any reasonably healthy adult should be able to imitate those movements with moderate coaching -- such as might be provided by a trainer with a Level 1 cert and limited practical experience. They might need to build up their mobility over time, but should be able to find the correct balance and so forth more or less on their own.

If they are not, then much more intense coaching might be required, as is the case for other high-skill movements. Even a fundamentally healthy person might need to "work up to" a full squat a step at a time, correcting form and watching for imbalances every step of the way.

Regardless of the independent merits of these points of view, it seems obvious that the second will be more appealing to those who have spent years of their lives learning how to fix imbalances and correct people's movements.

But I'm not sure this medicalization of exercise is necessarily healthy for the people both groups are trying to serve. Make exercise the domain of experts and elite athletes, something that requires careful supervision, an enormous investment of time, and complex equipment, and people won't do it. Make it accessible, and you're much more likely to improve people's actual fitness.

Katherine

[Ahmik Jones]

Originally Posted by Katherine Derbyshire

Speaking to this from the perspective of the trainee, rather than the trainer, it seems to me that there's a fundamental divide between CF and the professional training community.

Are the fundamental movements of Crossfit part of the normal spectrum of human movement, or not?

If they are, then any reasonably healthy adult should be able to imitate those movements with moderate coaching -- such as might be provided by a trainer with a Level 1 cert and limited practical experience. They might need to build up their mobility over time, but should be able to find the correct balance and so forth more or less on their own.

If they are not, then much more intense coaching might be required, as is the case for other high-skill movements. Even a fundamentally healthy person might need to "work up to" a full squat a step at a time, correcting form and watching for imbalances every step of the way.

Regardless of the independent merits of these points of view, it seems obvious that the second will be more appealing to those who have spent years of their lives learning how to fix imbalances and correct people's movements.

But I'm not sure this medicalization of exercise is necessarily healthy for the people both groups are trying to serve. Make exercise the domain of experts and elite athletes, something that requires careful supervision, an enormous investment of time, and complex equipment, and people won't do it. Make it accessible, and you're much more likely to improve people's actual fitness.

Katherine

I agree and you made may of my points better than I did. The so called experts tend to over inflate their own importance when it comes to teaching and supervising human movement. This is understandable, given the time they invested to gain their "expertise". They get the idea that only someone with their education can properly teach a complicated movement.

However, the truth of the matter is that for the most part people can perform these movements with a little instruction, and the "muscle imbalances" that the experts think they are fixing do not matter or often do not even exist. If someone is doing a natural movement such as a squat where all the muscles in the legs are working together, any muscle imbalances will be corrected much faster and more accurately than if an expert tries to fix them with isolation exercises.

[Bryan Kemper]

Originally Posted by Trevor Shaw

Seems in the end we are going to have to agree to disagree. Although I'm with you on 'experience' being a key factor.
Good debate bro.

Trevor,

When in your opinion is a person "experienced" enough to train someone?

What qualifications or degree should they obtain in order not injure a client?

[Trevor Shaw]

Ahmik,
Muscluar imbalances do not exist most of the time? What about the countless studies and information provided by Liebenson, McGill, Lewit and Janda on that exact topic? Do upper and lower cross syndromes not exist? Do weak lower trapezius and rhomboid muslces, or deep neck flexors (longus capitus and colli) not pre-dispose athletes (in particular) to upper cervical and levator scap sprain / strain?
Here is one paper with multiple sites discussing imbalances if you have any interest. Also, texts by any of those authors will provide more than enough information on everything I previously expressed concern about.
(WSFS) http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/m...e.php?id=38083


Bryan,
First, I simply propose that crossfit give the students more for their $1000. 1 weekend isn't enough to learn anything. you clearly look like a military guy, would you trust a weeknds worth of training in anything enough to then go ahead and teach it to others. All I'm saying here is people should demand more for their money. One Thousand Dollars is alot of money and 1 weekend is a very short time.
As for the long haul, I would love to see someone step up and mandate licensure for trainers. Licensure would guarenteed the person coaching you had at least some baseline knowlege of the body other than squat = good and bicep curls are a waste of time. This would easily weed out uneducated trainers who for lack of a better term don't know rat sh** from a rice crispy. (Appologies for the poor attempt at comic relief). Licensure would also allow people who havent earned a bachelors degree in a related field to take "required" equivalent classroom time to meet the demands set by the licensing board. If this ever happened I'd be one of the first in line to spend the money and take the test.

[Michael L Schaal]

Originally Posted by Trevor Shaw

Robert,
I apologize if I came off to harsh in the first post. That was not my intention. And, f I didn't like Crossfit I wouldn't be here, i respect its place in the conditioning world. The point I was trying to make was that Crossfit needs to hold itself to a higher standard then other certifications. It is better than that! To do so it first needs a national accreditation by a recognized licensing board. It also needs to hold its trainers to a higher standard and make sure they have more baseline knowledge before they give a level 1. My point was simply that you will never see a Crossfit Cert as head strength and conditioning coach for a collegiate / professional / olympic team until it provides their trainers with more education. There is simply no way that someone who took a weekend course or even 5 weekend courses could understand the mechanics of teaching and adapting techniques (ex. the snatch and squat) to a newby the same way someone with 4 years of classroom and practical experience could.
I think the trainers and the trainee's both deserve more for their $1000, don't you?

Interesting to point out not seeing a CrossFit Cert as a head strength and conditioning coach for a collegiate/professional/olympic team. There are countless examples of collegiate/professional/Olympic team coaches who have been through the certs, use CrossFit in their training programs, and endorse it wholeheartedly. I was a division I athlete, and my S&C coach is now part of the CrossFit Olympic lifting certification team. CrossFit really isn't much different than a good S&C program at a top tier athletic program. It's just brought that training to the average person like no other program before it and added the time/intensity aspect to get unparalleled results. I only wish I new back then what I do now.

Great post on Rhabdo by the way to start this thread!