In general, a big problem in the fitness industry is that personal trainers are beyond their practice. Currently, functional training has replaced the personal training industry as the best evidence-based practice. However, this has led many trainers to cross their qualifications. Many fitness clubs and personal training studios let their trainers perform things like posture assessments and functional motion screens to diagnose potential problems in everyday activities. How many trainers have actually received training? For example, I saw people's X-rays look like they were exaggerated when looking at their skin, but the X-rays did not show any anomalies. In this case, if we try to correct this situation, we may actually cause more damage. The question that needs to be answered is: Are we really qualified to diagnose anything?

Many “functional” trainers solve problems by diagnosing problems [muscle imbalance, joint pain, etc.] and trying corrective exercises, and go well between physiotherapists and personal trainers. Does this really belong to the practice range of personal trainers? Let's take a closer look at some definitions of the scope of practice of the American Sports Commission [ACE], the American College of Sports Medicine [ACSM], and the National Association for Strength and Reconciliation [NSCA]. This is three highly recognized and established personal training certifications in the fitness industry. NSCA has established a practitioner definition for its Premier Certification – Certification Force and Training Specialist [CSCS], which demonstrates that CSCS is a professional, "the practical application of basic knowledge to assess, motivate, educate and train athletes to achieve improvement. Target athletic performance. "It further states that CSCS's job is to consult and refer athletes to medical, diet, athletic training and sports coaching professionals at the appropriate time. ACE does not describe the scope of practice of personal trainers regarding diagnostic abnormalities. It does mention that trainers can be for those who are obviously healthy [what is the true meaning of "seemingly healthy"? Is it a judgment call?] or a medical license development and implementation plan.

Similar to the definition of CSCS practitioners, it specifically states that the trainer's job is to “recognize content within the scope of practice and always introduce customers to other medical professionals when appropriate”. ACSM states that “ACSM Certified Personal Trainer is a fitness professional involved in the development and implementation of a personalized approach to exercising leadership among healthy people and/or those with medical examinations”. There is nothing in their practice scope statement that the trainer should be able to diagnose and/or treat any disease. Eickhoff-Shemek & Deja [2002] responded to these statements in their article "Four Steps in Reducing Legal Responsibility in Sports." Licensed lawyer and exercise physiologist Sean Riley warned us that trainers can only design and implement training programs in law [Riley, 2005]. He further pointed out that acting outside this scope is illegal practice of medicine [Riley, 2005]. If the coach "practices or tries to practice, or… advertise or do exercises by himself, any person or model that treats the patient or is afflicted… or diagnosed, treated or manipulated will be judged Crime is used or prescribed for any disease, disorder, injury or other physical or mental condition… unauthorized execution of such acts…" [Herbert & Herbert, 2002]. This is written for the state of California, but many states have similar regulations. Like the above-mentioned practice scope statements of NSCA, ACE, and ACSM, Riley points out "rejecting customers who need more than your capabilities and knowledge." This opens up a whole host of new worms, as most trainers pay for commissions, making it difficult to keep customers out.

As a sports professional, we are suitable to pay attention to customer restrictions. This may include ROM, strength, coordination, and even mental capabilities. From here on, unless you are a qualified professional, our job is to solve these problems while keeping the customers active and healthy, rather than making the problem worse. Bottom line: Personal trainers must check and know when their work is over, and the work of another professional begins.

Eickhoff-Shemek, J. &Deja, K. [2002]. Reduce the four steps of legal responsibility in the exercise program. ACMS Health and Fitness Magazine, 4[4], 13-18.

Herbert, D. &Herbert, W. [2002]. The legal aspects of prevention, rehabilitation and leisure exercise programs. [4th edition]. Canton, Ohio. China Publishing House.

Riley, S. [2005]. Respect your boundaries. IDEA Trainer Success, 2[4], from http://www.ideafit.com/fitness-articles/personal-training/personal-training-ethics-scope-of-practice

The scope of practice of personal trainers was originally published on Spring