When I started out training, and probably through a lot of the years when I was becoming known as an industry expert, whatever the hell that is, I would say that programme design was the one area that got me confused. My brain likes to think a lot, and in detail, and so I found it hard to get to a point where people could tell me where the research came from, for the programming I was giving out.
Warm-ups, cool-downs, main sessions, exercise order, training techniques all seemed to be magically passed down from generation to generation. When it became cool to do corrective exercise, speed and agility and the rest of the new decisions that came from testing, this was always ahead of science, and if I listened to science I would be behind now. Science doesn’t even speak, it’s not a person.
Every time someone told me something new, their research was always shrouded in fallacy. (I have written a section on fallacy in this series of blogs.). It was this frustration with the industry that lead me to buid a business that teaches useful research skills.
My business and these blogs are aimed at people with limited time, who want to spend most of their time with their clients, but also want to do things right.
I have written this blog to share as much as I can about programming, without being able to teach you one to one, or one to small group in person. Although I attempted to keep this brief.
Program design looks simple: set client goals, make a plan, and get results. But for many trainers, the reality feels different. Imposter syndrome can creep in—doubts about whether the program is effective, whether the choices are right, and whether you're truly helping the client. Trainers often worry that clients might be bored with the same exercises, repeating the same program for everyone, or relying too heavily on what they learned in their Level 3 Personal Training Certification without seeking further evidence and growth.
What is a Fitness Programme if you boil it down to its component parts?
