I don’t like the title “Personal Trainer”

I don’t like it for me, anyway. It evokes the image of someone who fancies themselves a fitness model, and who works out (and trains clients) for the main priority of muscle definition.

Fitness is the ability to do what you want to do well i.e., being fit for a certain activity (including being fit for whatever life throws at you). Enlarged muscles are only one small facet of fitness.

Since we lead lives that are physically easier than our ancestors were used to, we need to simulate a day of demanding physical activity in the gym to stay healthy. Physical work is what our bodies are expecting. The type of gym training that produces the widest positive result is moving yourself well e.g., calisthenics or other bodyweight training; and lifting free weights and objects (not using machines that isolate a single movement). This philosophy is known by many as Functional Fitness.

I consider myself to be a Strength and Conditioning professional. My certification isn’t even in personal training—it’s in Tactical Strength and Conditioning. People with this type of background have a priority to maintain a balance of strength, and give workouts to their people according to the demands they face daily, strengthening up weak areas. It seems to me that this is a more mature approach to fitness, with no room for fads or gimmicks.

Those who know me know that I’m not a zippy, bouncy personal trainer. I’m a surly, no-nonsense, good-natured, son of a bitch who facilitates nothing short of excellent work in the gym.

Joseph MetalloComment