🚀 go-pugleaf

X-Orig-MsgId: <8461je$oij$1@news1.bu.edu>

[Let me tell you a little story about how well-trained aerobics instructors
 really are...]

In misc.fitness.aerobic Caleb Burns <calebb@teleport.com> wrote:
: I bet when Link (a trained instructor) "perceives" the workout to be harder
: when she cues others while exercising, it probably is harder than when she
: doesn't speak. On the whole, perceived difficulty in fairly well-trained
: people is a fairly accurate guage of actual effort, I believe. (I think I
: have read this in a variety of places.) Link is very well-trained, and her
: observations on this matter should not be discarded so easily.

I am a trainer and certification specialist for the largest certifying
organization in the world for aerobics instructors - AFAA (The Aerobics
and Fitness Association of America).  While I struggle both from within
the organization and outside of it to encourage higher standards for
group fitness leaders, the current realities of training and certification
are quite grim.

The vast majority of so-called "well-trained aerobics instructors" have
little more than a variable amount of home-study, about 5 hours of classroom
time (which includes both textbook work and practical training) and a
rather short (and in my opinion far too easy) examination on the rudiments
of training.

Most of the instructors you're seeking out to help in your debate about
the subtleties of blood gas levels during exercise can't even trace the
flow of blood through the heart, barely acknowledge the existance of the
pressor response much less are able to articulate what it is, and often
cannot name the breakdown products of aerobic energy metabolism (CO2 and
H2O).

While I have struggled with the industry to increase standards for practice,
it has become increasingly clear that even the minimal ones we have set
forth are not being met.  People regularly show up for workshops with
blank expressions and blank study guides, hoping that we'll "cover it all"
the day of the exam.  While they may pack enough information into their
short-term memory to do well enough to squeak by, in a few months much
of this is forgotten.

This sad fact has been driven home more and more as I've gone out into the
field to teach new continuing education programs for AFAA.  A large number
of aerobics instructors have forgotten such basic information as the names
of their major muscle groups and the joint actions they perform.  They no
longer know the difference between "aerobic" and "anaerobic."  Not even
armed with some of the most basic facts, the process of touching upon 
more involved concepts is difficult at best, and more likely than not a
nearly futile endeavor.

This is not entirely the fault of the instructors.  Indeed, they work at
a substantial disadvantage because there is an enormous for-profit industry
that surrounds them that perpetuates the myth that this bizarre form of
"education" is sound - mostly because it is sound when one considers the
"bottom line" - profits from certification and training.  

The current system of training and certifying aerobics instructors (and 
personal trainers) is not built upon an academic but rather a corporate model.
For example, when registration slowed at 3-day workshops, 2-day programs
became the norm.  When people signed up for 2-day programs in reduced 
numbers and objected to "too much time" for training, one-day certification
"review" programs replaced traditional trainings.  

The situation has become a vicious circle, as now efforts to increase the
length of time of training programs are viewed with suspicion.  Whenever a
certifying organization attempts to expand its curriculum, there are cries
from the customer pool (potential aerobics instructors who are not yet
certified) that the organizations are out to "make a buck" and that one-day
training programs are adequate.  

About two years ago, I wrote a new certification exam for an organization
based in the northeastern US that does training and certification programs.
We conducted a fair amount of in-house review of the exam before
administering it for the first time.  The initial group of candidates was
typical of the mix that enters aerobics instructor and personal trainer 
programs - lots of enthusiasm, little experience with exercise beyond their
personal exercise programs, and no formal training.  As a whole they did
very poorly on the exam.  They levelled complaints that the exam was 
"Master's Level" and that the requirements shouldn't be so stringent for
"Entry Level."  

Further analysis of the exam (and their performance) revealed that many
very basic concepts (like the fact that chest pain is a symptom that requires
medical evaluation before exercising) alluded these candidates.  In the
end the exam (and its scoring) was upheld, but the notion that candidates
who had just completed a brief, six-week training program felt that they 
were qualified to determine curriculum requirements for entry-level trainers
is disturbing.  

What is even more so, the very real concern was raised that having these
students  go into the community and complain that the certification
exam was "too hard" could have a negative effect on business.  Moreover,
there was the fact that while an exam that was "too hard" might force this
company out of business, it would only do so because someone else with
an exam that was "easier" would prevail - financially and educationally.

In this bizarre situation, people who are entirely ignorant of the required
knowledge base of instructors (those who are not yet certified who will be
taking training programs) drive the content, scope, and duration of curriculum.
Because the majority of certifying organizations are structured on a 
for-profit model, these organizations can ill afford to ignore requests 
for a product more closely tailored to their customer's needs (i.e., shorter 
time commitment, fewer knowledge requirements, and lower price).  

Even those organizations that are ostensibly not-for-profit (like ACE) 
are forced to compete in this fashion to manage any sort of market-share, 
and the competition is intense.  There are literally hundreds of certifying
organizations out there, all vying for a piece of this very profitable
pie.  In order to compete they offer lower prices and easier exams.  One
Internet source even advertises that you can download their manual for
free, download and take their test for free, and pay only if you pass and
want the certificate!  The exam consists of a number of true/false and
a few multiple choice questions, many of which are extremely basic even
when compared to the standards of the major organizations (like ACE
and AFAA).

Consider also what a typical "review" day is like.  If you look at AFAA's
9am-6pm format (and remember, AFAA holds the largest share of instructors
world-wide), you'll see that the day consists of a category-by-category
review of the practical examination criteria.  There's theory sprinkled in,
yes, but the time constraints are extremely narrow.  

Here is my typical day (taken from AFAA's Primary Certification 
Study Guide):

	9:00 AM - 9:30 - Welcome, Introduction, and Testing Procedures

	9:30 AM - 11:30 - Practical #1:  The AFAA 5 Questions, Warm-up,
		Aerobics; Arms, Chest, Shoulders, and Back; Quadriceps

	11:30 AM - 11:45 - Mock Exam/One-Minute Demonstration

	11:45 AM - 12:30 - Lunch

	12:30 PM - 2:00  - Practical #2:  Abdominals; Gluteals, Hamstrings,
		and Erector Spinae; Hip Abductors; Hip Adductors;  Cool-down

	2:00 PM - 2:15 - Break

	2:15 PM - 3:15 PM - Theory Review/Questions and Answers

	3:15 PM - 3:30 PM - Break

	3:30 PM - 4:50 PM - Practical Examination

	4:50 PM - 5:00 PM - Explanation of Written Exam Answer Sheet

	5:00 PM - 6:00 PM - Written Exam

Consider the implications.  All of upper body strengthening, for example,
is covered in approximately 45 minutes.  This category is allotted extra
time because we are also required to cover fundamental principles of
strength training, planes of movement, muscle actions, and kinesiology within
that time.

Aerobics and warm-up usually get about 25 minutes each - since we need to
include not only the practical aspects but a review of the relevant physiology!

Even in our one-hour "theory review" we're expected to review information
on Physiology (including Exercise Physiology), Cardiovascular 
Application During Exercise, Basic Kinesiology and Anatomy, Injury 
Prevention and Treatment, General and Sports Nutrition, and Body Composition
and Trends in Weight Management.  

How deeply can anything be covered under the best of circumstances?  And
worse, given the current rash of extremely ill-prepared candidates being
the norm, the process functions less and less well.

At the very least AFAA (and some of the other organizations) go out into the
field and provide some minimal level of training.  Many other organizations
provide no training at all, and merely make available (at an enormous
cost) an "accreditation process" whereby individuals can essentially become
franchised exam trainers.  The end result, though, is that no matter how
the organizations are structured, training programs teach "to the test," 
and the ability to turn a profit drives the length, breadth, and
depth of certification programs.

There are a large number of conscientious and well-intentioned fitness
educators who are grappling with this problem on a daily basis.  While we
are acutely aware of the difficulties imposed by the current working model,
bringing about change has been (and continues to be) difficult.  However,
I believe that you will begin to see increasing amounts of research
devoted to these questions, and perhaps armed with more hard data about
the deficiences of the current system change the current system in ways
that it is not possible to do with merely anecdotal data.

Link is certified by ACE - The American Council on Exercise.  They publish
one of the best Aerobics Instructor training manuals available.  It's a
lovely book.  About 400 pages total.  Of those 400 pages, only 120 pages
are devoted to what ACE calls "Essentials" - Anatomy, Kinesiology,
Exercise Physiology, and Nutrition, which get approximately 30 pages each.

The incompleteness and shallowness of such a treatment can be demonstrated
by the fact that there's no chapter on resting physiology.  How can one
understand the changes in physiology brought about by exercise if you
have no training in resting physiology?

The text from my introductory anatomy and physiology course was
well over 1000 pages, and that didn't include the lab manual.  Moreover,
such courses expect biology, chemistry, organic chemistry, and physics
as prerequisites.  For every chapter in the ACE manual I've got a book for 
the corresponding *introductory* academic course which is larger than
the entire ACE manual.

When I appear dismissive of a "well-trained" aerobics instructor's knowledge
of exercise physiology it's not because I am dismissive or disrespectful - it's
simply that I'm acutely aware of those limitations.  Given that I have
about 20 minutes in my day to review and answer all the questions a group
of instructors may have about exercise physiology, there's not much time
for anything but the most basic essentials.  My very first exercise 
physiology lecture lasted for 1 1/2 or 2 hours, and was building upon a
base of chemistry, biology, and anatomy and physiology.  That didn't
include any of the lab work!  I have less than half that time to not only
cover the same breadth of information, but to lay out whatever essentials
are needed as well.

Moreover, when one compares ACE's 1994 manual with its 1987 edition, there
was a substantial "dumbing-down" of material even over what aerobics
instructors were expected to know in 1987.  Excellent descriptions of
functional anatomy have been replaced by laundry lists of muscles and
joint actions devoid of context, which by and large is not tested (and so 
many would-be exam candidates are advised to avoid spending too much time
on the more detailed aspects of this section in favor of more heavily-
emphasized areas on the certification exams).

Most aerobics instructors know very little more than aerobics class
participants these days when it comes to exercise physiology.  While the
public has become better educated in general, aerobic instructor
training has not kept pace.  In many ways, aerobics instructors are less
able to cope with the questions posed by their participants than they were
several years ago - not only because participant questions (like this one)
have become more subtle and sophisticated, but also because instructors
are working with a shrinking knowledge base driven by both the certifying
organizations' desire to make a profit and the instructors' desire to spend
as little time and money as possible to become "certified."

Now there are dedicated aerobics instructors and personal trainers who 
are working to expand their knowledge base.  Their efforts are commendable
and should be encouraged.  However, the industry they work in does not
support them well in this regard, and there are substantial disincentives
to education and training - such as low pay and the low status that comes
from being a small, informed minority in a sea of poorly trained individuals
who are giving out bad advice.  For example, a business associate of mine who
was working Southern California talked with dismay about the fact that
many clubs in her area were getting rid of certified trainers (who wanted up
to $15/hr) and replacing them with uncertified trainers (who they could hire
for $5/hr).  With such powerful factors working against higher standards
for education, it is little wonder that often instructors seek out the 
cheapest, easiest certification, and eschew those that are more demanding
and impose higher standards.

So yes, there are "trained" aerobics instructors out there.  There are
some people who have overcome tremendous obstacles and have an excellent
knowledge base to work from.  For the most part, however, "training" for
aerobics instructors is little more than the minimal amount of grist to
keep the wheels of the certification mill from wearing out entirely.  It is
not until a joint effort on the part of certifying organizations, would-be
instructors, currently certified instructors, and the general public
is undertaken to not only affirm existing standards but to reconsider
them in light of the current public awareness of exercise that certification
will once again be truly meaningful.  In the meantime, when consulting
aerobics instructors on matters of exercise physiology, it is best to keep
the notion of "caveat emptor" - let the buyer beware -  in mind.

					larry...