Certification vs. Qualification.

The training industry has grown a great deal in the past 20 years, and in that time, trends have come and gone, some evolving to greater heights and some diluting into virtual meaninglessness.

One of the most insidious aspects of the training industry is the trend of certifiable workshops claiming to teach practical knowledge where the attendee will have usable skills by the end of a few hours, a single day or a weekend.

Wikipedia (yes, this is a Wikipedia reference) defines certification as: [referring] "to the confirmation of certain characteristics of an object, person, or organization. This confirmation is often, but not always, (emphasis added) provided by some form of external review, education, assessment or audit."
It also defines qualification as: "A title or attribute gained in education, through examinaation or by certification." Perhaps a clarification is required here.

Certification in the industry, across a plethora of fitness and training modalities, is most often signified by a certificate (and continuing education creditable points/hours) acquired at the end of the attendance to an event designed to educate a group of individuals on the concept(s) being taught or elucidated. Sometimes the certification is qualified by an examination process to prove that the individual is competent in utilizing the knowledge gained. All too often however, there is no assessment of the individual’s understanding of the new concepts and they are free to interpret and implement the knowledge as they see fit, without adherence to a set of standardized principles.

A valuable and great experience, otherwise very little practical or directly applicable value.

Qualification on the other hand does not necessarily entail a certification process (or accreditation) by a governing body, although in professional trades circles, it is common, but does require that a practitioner develop an in depth understanding of the fundamental principles of the concept(s), either through a combination of lengthy education and practicum processes such as an apprenticeship, internship, mentorship and/or a trades credential, diploma or degree. Qualification is reminiscent of a long used system where a young person would learn from an already established individual in a particular trade, e.g. a blacksmith. Years of learning and subsequent practice were what determined whether or not the individual earned the right to call themself a practitioner, or in time, a master of the given trade.

In formal education, the typical flow is to go to class, self-study from text and notes and then to write exams based on the knowledge provided. This works fairly well, but in the current system, as class sizes grow and many professors have other commitments (such as research and supervising masters students, and/or publishing) to attend to, the attention that students receive is becoming more and more limited. There is also a very small, sometimes non-existent, practical component to the classroom education, at least as far as the training industry is concerned.

Frequently, discussions and thought process-promoting dialogue with knowledgeable peers are unavailable, leaving critical thinking processes off the board to a fair extent.

Technical colleges do something of a better job integrating these aspects of education into an individual’s learning, but the final certification is not necessarily regarded the same way in the working world, i.e. tradesmen are often viewed as less intellectually developed, although more experienced in their given craft at the time of their certification’s completion.

In the training industry, there is a commitment to learning that needs to be respected in order to be successful. These include the initial certification that creates a baseline education, sufficient for the practitioner to be insured. This may or may not include a university or college level education degree or diploma. Following this, there may be a post-graduate degree to be achieved and then continuing education to be maintained moving forward.

The title of the article ought to lead to a discussion around the differences between the two, but more importantly, what goes into both and what the eventual outcome should be and what can be expected of the practitioner within a given timeframe.

Continuing education credits are received for the completion of a number of different educational opportunities. Some are workshop or lecture based, where the attendee may receive a certificate of completion upon finishing the hours/days/weekend(s). Herein lies a problem. If the education component is not tested, how can we be certain that a practitioner has achieved a level of understanding sufficient to utilize the newly gained principles or techniques in a safe and effective manner? Over the years, it seems that more and more entities are handing out certifications based on attendance, rather than learning. Often these entities are educating practitioners on how to utilize a specific tool or concept in a narrow scope or environment, which may or may not allow them an understanding sufficient to effectively apply the newly acquired tools.

In short, whomever is hired into a position of authoritative practice ought to have completed both; certification(s) to ensure adequate base knowledge, sufficient to prove the capacity to deliver basic principles safely, and also enough qualitative practice to ensure a sufficient understanding of how to manipulate principles into a custom program for either a team, individual or group so that the safety and efficacy of the goals can be reached.

Although it is impressive to maintain a list of credentials attached to your name, be able to recite research at a whim, it does not prove the ability to administer a program at any given level. It is this that becomes a concern when the livelihood of a talented athlete, or the day-to-day function of the general population, are at stake.

Keep learning, questioning, practicing, serving your base to the best of your abilities, always know your limitations and who to refer to when you skill level has reached its practical ceiling.

On Foam Rolling...

I found this just recently. It was an interview I did for a friend that was writing a book on foam rolling. While it seems that there is a lot of 'up-in-the-air' about it, I generally like that it makes clients and athletes feel good, and if there's a psychological benefit, there are likely other offshoot benefits as well. More power to you!

Your name: Faolan Dunphy  

Business name: Speed Power Endurance, High Performance Consulting

Website: SpeedPowerEndurance.com

Please describe your professional qualifications:
Strength and Conditioning Coach, Simon Fraser University, NCAA Divison 2
Undergraduate Degree; Kinesiology, University of British Columbia,
Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, National Strength and Conditioning Association

National Coaching Certification Program
Supervisor of Fitness Leaders, British Columbia Recreation and Parks Association (BCRPA)

FMS Level 2

In what capacity do you use foam rollers with your clients, and why?
Generally speaking I do not prescribe foam rollers.  I allow my clients and athletes the choice to use them as an adjunct to their training programs, I include space in their written programs for them to include it, but I don’t prescribe them as such.  If they have time to include it as part of their soft tissue management and they find it beneficial, I will accept and encourage the psychological benefit even if there is no significant supporting research.  I will use it to treat myself as well when I can’t get manual therapy.

What benefits do your clients experience from foam rolling?

Reported benefits include decreased residual muscle tone or tightness, increased mobility and/or flexibility and a general sense of ease.

“Do’s” and “don’ts”: any pointers or cues you like to tell your clients as they learn to foam roll?

Typically I suggest that the rolling be done to large masses of tissue, specifically the muscle bellies.  Roll slowly yet fluidly to maintain or promote circulation and avoid over-compressing tissues and potentially causing contusions (bruising).  Spend a little extra time on trigger points (particularly ‘knotty’ areas) to help decrease the tension within the fibres and potential formation of nodules and/or adhesions.
Do get manual therapy (i.e. massage) to distract fascial layers and adhesions which foam rolling cannot do. Also, stretch using passive and active techniques to help prevent nodules and/or adhesions from forming. Preferably immediately post-activity.

Stay away from rolling large connective tissue tracts (Ilio-tibial band, thoracolumbar fascia) as this can potentially cause greater adhesions to develop by mashing layers of connective tissue together, actually impeding the ability of muscle compartments to contract independent of other surrounding tissues pretty much completely defeating the purpose of the modality.

Your top 3 favourite foam roller moves (can be massage, mobility, stability, or strength-based exercise):

Foam rolling is compressive in nature, whereas massage is distractive, therefore rolling should not be used as a replacement for massage.

Over the years I’ve used foam rollers, half rollers etc. for a variety of different reasons including balance implements, therapeutic or post rehabilitative work and even to beat up my clients a little when they get out of line (just kidding!!).  I can’t fathom how you could legitimately use the foam roller to develop any significant elements of strength, so I would never use it for such a purpose.

I also don’t consider there to be any foam rolling ‘moves’ or ‘exercises’ just like I wouldn’t consider running or massage to have ‘moves’ or ‘exercises.’ It is a recovery/regeneration technique that I consider dominantly succesful due to a placebo effect rather than an actual physiological effect.  More because there simply is not enough conclusive evidence in the scientific literature to support its efficacy than anything else.  There certainly is a body of anecdotal evidence that supports it “feeling good.”
But if it feels good… and it doesn’t reduce performance, more power to you!

Principles-based training
Faolan C. Dunphy
BKin, CSCS, NCCP, SFL

I have worked for over 20 years in the physical preparation and personal fitness industry, with several of those years dedicated to teaching, and all of them dedicated to science-based learning. It strikes me as odd that there are fundamental training principles taught to everyone that are apparently either disregarded or forgotten in the day-to-day practice with both general population clientele and athletes. It has come to such a ridiculous point that one of my athletes said to me recently, “I had no idea that there was any education necessary for training people. I don’t see any logic or consistency when I look around at what other people are doing.”

Physical training principles are meant to govern the decision-making order when working with varied populations to ensure that relevant physical qualities, capacities, skills and adaptations are being developed as needed. Keep in mind that training can be interpreted as an art rooted in science. The methods used and how to manipulate them is dependent on the individual/team’s situation and the knowledge, skills, tools and abilities of any particular coach/trainer in implementing them and is unique in every interaction.

I have outlined brief definitions of these individual principles, as well as some simple questions that could be asked as to how the principles may be integrated into programming for the greater daily and long-term success of the client. As I prefer to assess each circumstance individually, I will not answer these questions with sweeping generalizations for fear that someone will take the advice too literally and administer a poor interpretation to the detriment of the client.


Specificity
  The methods chosen to train an individual must match the individual’s goals.

A client wants to compete in a running based sport. In order for them to be successful, they need to run for a significant portion of their training. This should be obvious, but the next parts might not be obvious to some. How fast do they want or need to run? What distances at what speeds and what intervals? What is the terrain like? How do you go about meshing all the qualities? In this case speed/endurance, as well as cadence/tempo/stride, together? Are they strong enough to train for the sport/event? Are they strong enough to endure the event at a speed that meets their goal? Hence, the specificity of your decision-making will determine, in large part, the success of the client’s training program.


Adaptivity
  As an individual is trained, they will adapt to the methods applied.

An individual that swims will become a better swimmer. An individual that runs fast will become a better runner at that given speed, with sufficient and correct practice. An individual exposed to a higher altitude will become more comfortable at that altitude over time. What kind of adaptation does the individual need? What needs to be done to ensure that the adaptations occur in the desired timeline, and are appropriate for the goals in mind? Adaptivity not only requires specificity, but also progressively greater training loads to elicit positive adaptations to training. 

Overload 
  The methods used to train an individual must be sufficient to create more stress than the individual is currently capable of handling. 

In order to achieve higher levels of a particular physical capacity, the limits of that capacity must be exceeded. In what manner can this be accomplished? How much overload? When? What to overload? Motor skill? Load? Volume? Velocity? A progression of work must be outlined to ensure overload creates positive adaptations.

Progressivity
  The methods used to train an individual must follow a progression. In order for an individual to achieve greater success, the methods used must increase in an orderly, cumulative fashion.

What rate of progression is required to elicit safe and positive adaptations? Is regression of one or more aspects required in order to see progress in others?

Reversibility
  The results achieved by training will diminish if training is not maintained in a sufficient manner.

What happens if the training is backed off? Is there an event or season that needs to be tapered for? What qualities are absolutely necessary to keep and which ones can be done without, or with less of? Can the capacities trained for be maintained, and for how long?

Transferability
  Transferability is the ability of the training effect from one modality to carry over to another with a reasonable correlation.

Does strength translate to power or speed? Does endurance translate to speed or strength? Does strength or power translate to endurance? What modalities can be used to reduce, if necessary, the volume of specific training without detriment to the outcome? Less can often be more.

Recovery
  Recuperation intervals must match the training intensity and duration in order to either replicate or produce a greater result.

Adaptation occurs during recovery but is caused by overload and progression. Nutrition, sleep, rest, de-stress, para/sympathetic stimulus (dependent on the sport), leisure etc. How much? When? How often? What will lead to the most effective return to a subsequent training cycle and the most progress?

Individuality
  In training, the unique needs of the individual, or individual situation must be taken into account.

In my opinion, this by far the single most important principle required for a successful training process. Too often coaches and trainers learn systems to slot their clients/athletes into, and forget that no one system can address the whole uniqueness of an individual, or situation. What is the individual’s training/sport experience? Medical history? Personality? Ability? Capacity for managing various stimuli?

 All of these principles can be manipulated in a variety of ways. I consider this to be the final principle of creativity. Unfortunately, it seems that far too often, this principle predominates all others in an attempt to satisfy our desire for something shiny and new, or a magic bullet that somehow will relieve the necessity for adhering to “boring old principles” – as I once overheard in a conversation.

 I have found that the best way to precisely achieve results takes time and practice with a strong basis in scientific literature and scientific method and also a keen eye for observation. Hence, it becomes a process of changing one thing at a time and then observing the impacts of each of those changes.

 “There is nothing new under the sun” they say. Personally, I’m hard pressed to believe that this is in any way, or even entirely, incorrect. However, it seems that it’s more a case of small new discoveries and explanations for things that are usually already inherently known. More often than not, new discoveries don’t change what is known all that dramatically. Paradigm shifts are rare, but it seems that they’re being bought into with “One old/weird/new trick” as the internet scammers and profiteers would claim.

 Stick to the basics, do them well and then get creative. Leave some of the tools in the toolbox sometimes. A jackhammer is not needed to paint a house and a paintbrush is useless to demolish concrete.

 In a future article, I’ll review what I consider to be a simplified version of the training hierarchy based on physical performance qualities, which can be applied to both athletic and general populations.