Coaching & Mindset
How to Spot a Dodgy Fitness Technique or System
In short: A technique that appears to work is not proof it works — break it down through the biopsychosocial filter (biomedical, psychology, social psychology) and you can see how much of the result came from the method versus the rapport, belief and setting around it.
In an industry with more answers than questions, it is genuinely hard to tell what works from what is made up. This is a system for working out why a technique seems to help — and whether it actually does.
Like most trainers, I want to give my clients the best training, results and experience I can. That drive pulls you towards techniques and gurus almost instinctively.
The session that changed my mind
Years ago I was in the middle of a postural assessment — foam rolling, fascial scraping, Stecco's fascia points, a lot of filming while looking concerned about my client's performance. Somewhere in that I had a thought.
Not long before, someone had challenged me to stop listening to gurus and read the research instead. So I did. That changed everything. My evidence started coming from the balance of good research papers in good journals, rather than my memory of a guru's book, video or course.
Great for me. Harder as an educator — because when a technique looks like it works, explaining why that isn't enough is a difficult sell.
The biopsychosocial filter
The trick that helped was applying a biopsychosocial filter to a technique before using it. The biomedical model tries to fix a problem by changing structure or chemistry. The biopsychosocial model asks you to filter the whole experience down into three sciences. Here is the recipe:
- Split the model into its three sciences.
- Break the technique down into those sciences — the person delivering it, how it was delivered, the client's beliefs, and the method itself.
- Build up a picture of what actually makes the technique appear to work.
- Decide whether you agree that each part is scientific, then make your call.
A real example — from me
A student came on a course having heard I could "fix pain with biomechanics". In the break she asked me to look at her bad knee.
I'd spent the morning fixing imbalances and improving technique in front of the group, so my guru status was intact and we'd built a good rapport. She lunged; my coaching eye kicked in. I spotted the ankle everting and dorsiflexing late, holding up the tibia, and worked hands-on through the midfoot and first MTP joint to fix the timing. She felt her glutes switch on. Better already.
Then I asked her to hop to test the knee — and she hopped off on the opposite foot to the one I'd worked on. It was a one-sided test. I explained it away, but it didn't add up.
So let's run it through the filter.
- Biomedical. The idea was that correcting movement sequence reduced stress at the knee and removed the pain. Even if that were true, she hopped on the other leg — so it can't be the explanation here.
- Psychology. I was a last-ditch attempt after others hadn't helped, and she was determined I'd be the one. Pain is an emotion — a response to a stimulus and a judgement about what's needed to protect the body. A positive expectation and renewed confidence in the movement stacked the cards in my favour.
- Social psychology. This is the interesting bit. I looked the part of the industry outcast, spoke against traditional therapies, had a group reporting good results, and we got on. I fitted the preconception of the therapist she needed. Attention plus a technique would have helped her whatever I did.
If I scored it, I delivered maybe a 66% experience with a positive outcome — and I never found out whether the pain went by coincidence, my trickery, or came back worse.
What to do with that
Wouldn't it be better to keep all those positives and then apply a biomedical technique that actually has scientific validity? That is the best thing for the client — and it doesn't rely on being lucky enough to match someone's expectations so perfectly.
It is why FASTER courses are built around rapport building, interviewing and near-cellular listening — watching the small changes in how a client speaks and moves as they explain things. You need the biomedical side of the problem and the psychology and social expectations of the person in front of you.
When I later read the research, her pain looked like a fear of moving. I restored her faith in her body and got her to move to prove it. I could have done that better with hands-off coaching for skill development — but that is another article.
If you try this evaluation on a technique you were sure had cured something and reach a different conclusion, I'd love to hear it — post it on our Facebook page and I'll answer every one.
Want to go deeper? The Certified Personal Trainer route.
View the course →Frequently asked
Why do so many fitness techniques seem to work?
Because a result can come from the client's belief, your rapport and the setting as much as the method itself. Feeling confident and safe changes pain and performance regardless of what you did to the body.
What is the biopsychosocial filter?
It splits any technique into three sciences — biomedical (structure and chemistry), psychology (the client's beliefs and emotions) and social psychology (expectations, your image, the group) — so you can see what is really driving the outcome.
Isn't 'it worked' good enough?
No. If you don't know why it worked, you can't repeat it reliably or explain it, and you may be crediting the technique when belief and rapport did the work.
How do I use the filter in practice?
Break the technique into the three sciences, weigh how scientific each part is, then decide whether you'd still use it — ideally keeping the psychology and social wins while swapping in a method with real biomedical validity.
Does this mean hands-on work is useless?
No. It means you should be honest about the mechanism, and where the biomedical case is weak, lean on coaching, listening and restoring the client's confidence in movement.
