I don't think that's a fair comparison. It's more like would you want your physical ailments treated by an unfit but talented medical professional or the fittest person at your local gym?
> What a ridiculous analogy. "Athlete" is a career.
The athlete is the extreme example, but there are obviously people who are not career athletes that don't have a defined stop point with employing a trainer (maybe you could say "death" is the stop point).
Most everyone who goes to spinning class isn't a career athlete. Some of them are terribly out of shape, and some of those people just want to get in shape. Others may already be in shape, but see the spinning class as a way to either improve or maintain their conditioning. None of this is deemed ridiculous.
I'm curious, it's considered the norm to regularly see a doctor or dentist, do you think they're preying on their patients?
> What is being developed, exactly?
Mental health. There's obviously a more involved answer, but if you don't know it already, it's unlikely I'll be able to educate you with a comment on social media.
I’m not sure I agree. If I were to hire a Personal Trainer and they were in terrible shape I’d be doubtful of their skill. What shape the person is in _shouldnt_ matter for their ability to do the job, but because they haven’t gone through the process themselves I’d have initial doubts about their skills. Your actions say a lot about your values and thoughts.
> They can't all be equal Unless ofc none of them do anything.
I often think of my therapist like a personal trainer. If you get a personal trainer, and go regularly, you will get fit. The particular workout they use does not matter so much as just going. Maybe one trainer would improve my cardio more, another would make me better at lifting weights and burst strength. Either way I am going to be healthier for going.
You seem defensive. Don't you believe it's better to be physically fit and energetic than not, or do you argue that fitness and health is truly irrelevant to your role as an employee?
You could suppose that there is an unfair cognitive bias at work (see /beauty premium/) which could favor one candidate over the other. But think about how an interviewer would consider the physically fit you versus the physically unfit you. This is the real point, not how you compare to someone else.
The author does have a few indicators that his teacher was in the top tier; the teacher trained special forces troops, the best mountain climbers, and ski racers. These are people who you can trust to be among the best trained in general fitness.
And in the end the author was vastly more fit than the majority of people trying to be fit. The majority of people trying to be fit go to the gym once in a while, do a few cardio exercises, and go home. He was among them before meeting with this guy. He's still well below a lot of people, like professional athletes, but the people he is still below only represent a small fraction of the population.
I get your point though. He still can't say whether or not his trainer is the best or if his ideas are the best. What he can say, though, is that his trainers ideas are much better than those of the typical gym trainer at a franchise gym. This article is clearly not targeted at Michael Phelps. It's targeted at the average gym-goer.
I don't agree with your summary. Physical weakness in my comparison is analogous to lack of technical skill or incorrectness in tech. It's orthogonal to being thick or thin skinned - one can be an uber powerlifter with a total > 1000lb who gets offended and whines when a coach says "your abs aren't strong enough, work them harder".
I also don't believe it's wrong to want anything.
I merely believe that all the potential changes I've seen suggested (beyond perhaps "everyone magically becomes nice") are probably more harmful than the current situation.
That's too general. "Ugly" has too many dimensions. For example, a lot of women would consider most of the latest "Mr. Olympia" contestants as grotesque and ugly. One could also be greatly fit and still have an extremely unattractive face.
Now, if you want to say that you've never seen a successful, out-of-shape personal trainer, I'd probably concede that. Being in-shape is marketing for the expertise you are taking payment for.
Ah, got it. Yes, I agree that it's sufficient to be healthy, that's why it's the only number I initially brought up. I hate when people conflate exceptional fitness with health for people who don't want to specialize on fitness.
As the OP said, for companies that don't have a lot of fitness, it's great too.
The one overwhelmingly large difference is that the professionals that deal with it on the context of people are well trained and know not to push it over the point it becomes harmful. But that detracts nothing from the point.
I don't pay for going to the office, so I don't think that comparison really works.
> having a single goal (physical fitness) is bad
What part of my comment gave you that notion? I should edit this because it's absolutely not what I meant (a sibling comment also commented as if I said getting fit has no benefits).
This is a super strange take. Is that claim that since there's a higher proportion of people that are extremely strong, people who aren't fit feel bad when going to the gym since they don't compare? The gym industry takes some blame for people not being fit because .... by making serious strength training widely available it's produced too many too fit people?
> but keeping physically fit was something that people did everywhere: sports in the park, exercise at home.
Nobody took away sports in the park or exercise at home
> This raising of the bar coupled with the fact that working out need to be done now in special locations that involve a lot more effort than doing 20 push-ups at home
Nobody took away 20 pushups at home, or is forcing you to do exercise at a gym.
If anything, the ease of access to high quality information on bodyweight exercises (/yoga/dance class/...) is miles beyond what it used to be - just go to youtube! They're SUPER effective as well!
> There's a lot of benefit to finding someone that teaches you both what to do and how to do it, and is also better informed and more competent than most fitness trainers. The good ones will also walk you through a basic physiology course so you can understand the why of it all (why did I become injured, why does this prevent or reduce the risk of a future injury).
This is a big part of why I have avoided it thus far... I have a hard enough time getting a doctor that I feel like cares about my issues (rather than just getting me out the door as quick as possible) enough to listen and understand. I don't want to spend a bunch of time and money trialing different therapists. I wish there was a resource for this online.
I agree though, if I plan to continue the type of cycling I did last year, it's probably going to become a necessity.
I wish standards were higher; I've had that wish since starting a gym. Most gyms are good, most trainers mean well, but there are a few bad apples and people who are unaware.
I'm not turning a blind eye. There is a different between being a realist and trying to garner attention by bashing a trend that you don't understand.
Even there the success metrics vary widely between customers. I hire a fitness trainer to increase functional strength and prevent sports injuries, not to lose weight. The whole area is so subjective that there can't be any common agreement on key metrics.
It's not even just a larger societal problem, but something on altogether different scales of magnitude (pun not intended). People suffering from health issues due to bodybuilding are a rounding error of a rounding error in comparison. Getting anywhere close to that is an arduous task that will put off all but the most dedicated, so the problem solves itself.
I'm all for a more informed population on health matters, but I don't see the point of going after the practitioners of a specific hobby on account of it potentially hurting other people's feelings, as implied in the post I was originally replying to. Reminds me a bit of the mindset criticized in Harrison Bergeron.
reply