Sophisticating the bench press

[Coach Flanagan]

As someone whose both NASM Certified and CST Certified, It seems to me that they have very little in common, especially in terms of core values.

[wildman]

i am aware of the differnce between health first and physique first. i was only stating that nasm is an evolution (far below cst) of "gym science" going in, what i consider to be the correct direction. they are maintaining the clients goals as their motivation, but trying to accomplish it in the least damaging way possible.

i was in no way stating an equivalence between cst and nasm.

i beleive that nasm is a product of the modern health club environment where salespeople sell memberships to a large impersonal space with a million dollars of useless equipment. the training staff, which is always at odds with the sales staff, are more often than not genuinly trying (in my experience) to promote a more educated view, aka less harmful, more healthy view of "fitness." Away from the bench and the squat. but training is sold in a goal oriented way. someone getts a trainer to help them lose wt. or they buy training because they want to train for a triathlon. the society that we live in is a goal oriented one. very rarly do people walk in and state that they want better health. most people don't know the differnce between a health goal and a wt loss goal. to them, the doctor said lose wt, its healthy. so they want to see progress along that specific goal. if they don't lose wt then, they cease to train, and the trainer has lost the ability to help them. it is a bit of a catch 22.

i do not equate nasm and cst. i am not a cst (yet), but i do train my clients in a health first way. (or i'm attempting to, i do not teach clubbells as i am not certified) i do maintain their goals as well. i focus on their goals when talking to them to help them relate the healthy excercise to the what they want to accomplish. i use kettlebells, sans the power breathing method.

[wildman]

i asked one of my trainer clients (nasm-corrective excercise specialist) the other day to list for me what she thought nasm was about...

1. don't hurt anyone, or allow them to hurt themselves
2. impove your clients quality of life
3. equip them to move toward their goals

i thought it was pretty concise.

[Scott Sonnon]

i am aware of the differnce between health first and physique first. i was only stating that nasm is an evolution (far below cst) of "gym science" going in, what i consider to be the correct direction. they are maintaining the clients goals as their motivation, but trying to accomplish it in the least damaging way possible.

i was in no way stating an equivalence between cst and nasm.

i beleive that nasm is a product of the modern health club environment where salespeople sell memberships to a large impersonal space with a million dollars of useless equipment. the training staff, which is always at odds with the sales staff, are more often than not genuinly trying (in my experience) to promote a more educated view, aka less harmful, more healthy view of "fitness." Away from the bench and the squat. but training is sold in a goal oriented way. someone getts a trainer to help them lose wt. or they buy training because they want to train for a triathlon. the society that we live in is a goal oriented one. very rarly do people walk in and state that they want better health. most people don't know the differnce between a health goal and a wt loss goal. to them, the doctor said lose wt, its healthy. so they want to see progress along that specific goal. if they don't lose wt then, they cease to train, and the trainer has lost the ability to help them. it is a bit of a catch 22.

i do not equate nasm and cst. i am not a cst (yet), but i do train my clients in a health first way. (or i'm attempting to, i do not teach clubbells as i am not certified) i do maintain their goals as well. i focus on their goals when talking to them to help them relate the healthy excercise to the what they want to accomplish. i use kettlebells, sans the power breathing method.

Mark,

That was precisely why I was confused. Regardless of whether it is the client's "desire" and the health club's commercial contract obligation, fulfilling health-damaging objectives - such as those created by the "physique first" doctrine - in the least health-damaging manner possible to them still lacks the ability to build health first. The least health-damaging is still far from "health first." They're just "the lepers with the most fingers."

You say that you're teaching clients from a "health first" perspective. I've never met one trainer outside of our organization make such a claim. Please explain for me what you mean by "health first" and how that specifically manifests in how you train your clients.

[wildman]

You say that you're teaching clients from a "health first" perspective. I've never met one trainer outside of our organization make such a claim. [/QUOTE]

i said i was attempting to. which means that i know that i am not fully equiped from the cst standpt to teach a true "health first" approach but that i attempt to come as close to it as possible without using things i have not been authorized to use.

my clients are instructed to use basic joint maintainance excercices that i learned from steve maxwell. I realize that this is not Intu-Flow® but i'm not authorized to intruct in this area so i don't

i utilize the basic movements of pilates to encourage a closer neurological relationship to core structure in my clients. most clients have no concept and no control over the muscles in the midsection of the body. a basic 10 min pilates series allows them to develop at least a basic ability to engage the muscles of the core (see the book pilates for men as a reference to the basic series)

as part of this i focus on the health of my clients lower back as most of my clients are desk ridden for at least eight hours a day. in the begining they begin w the floor bridge and they perform it, over time, until i'm satisfied that they have developed an under standing of what the erector spinae are and its relationship to stabalizing the spine in conjuction with the posterior chain.

the basic example a of core progression being a progression from the basic yoga forward bent (the sivandanda companion to yoga) to the plow position to what is affectionatly refered to as stripper plow or known as the roll over (pilates for men). a dynamic transition between the basic yoga forward bend and the plow.

i also use a basic transition of child pose to cobra (updog) to compensate for the large amount of movement of the spine in the other direction.

this is the basics of how i try to incorporate a health first approach. the spine, mobilization and stabilization, being the largest problems for all of my clients. so it is what is focused on the most in the begining.

as training progresses they use these basic excercises to warm up and cool down the spine.

then i focus on the six basic excercises of kb training in a performance breathing manner. i now say exhaling through the effort (which i picked up here) but i used to say breath during the hard part and don't stop breathing. i do not, nor have i ever really taught the power breathing method. nasm includes a section on the dangers of excessive tension and its dangers to blood pressure, etc.

the two most basic excersicses of the six being the TGU and swing. in addition to the six basic excercise i utilize the

kb slingshot and its evolutions from jeff martone,
the high windmil, and its progressivly more circular evolutions,
and the kb halo and it evolution the halo deadlift, or halo swing

these are an attempt to increase the 3d gpp of my clients toward a cst ideal while not overstepping the bounds of what i feel comfortable teaching

i have completely moved away from the 5 areas of the body and corresponding excercises taught by nasm because of their limited physique based view.
core, chest, back, shoulder, legs.

the oblivously (to me) superiority of a kb system lead me to new levels of GPP. i remain in its limited system because i am not authorized to teach the cst system. i hold a great respect for nasm and nasm trainers because they equiped me with a vocabulary and anatomy knowledge which allows me to increase my understanding of other systems of physcial movement and training.

i hope this answeres your questions coach. i hope i have not offended.

[Scott Sonnon]

i said i was attempting to. which means that i know that i am not fully equiped from the cst standpt to teach a true "health first" approach but that i attempt to come as close to it as possible without using things i have not been authorized to use.

my clients are instructed to use basic joint maintainance excercices that i learned from steve maxwell. I realize that this is not Intu-Flow®® but i'm not authorized to intruct in this area so i don't

i utilize the basic movements of pilates to encourage a closer neurological relationship to core structure in my clients. most clients have no concept and no control over the muscles in the midsection of the body. a basic 10 min pilates series allows them to develop at least a basic ability to engage the muscles of the core (see the book pilates for men as a reference to the basic series)

as part of this i focus on the health of my clients lower back as most of my clients are desk ridden for at least eight hours a day. in the begining they begin w the floor bridge and they perform it, over time, until i'm satisfied that they have developed an under standing of what the erector spinae are and its relationship to stabalizing the spine in conjuction with the posterior chain.

the basic example a of core progression being a progression from the basic yoga forward bent (the sivandanda companion to yoga) to the plow position to what is affectionatly refered to as stripper plow or known as the roll over (pilates for men). a dynamic transition between the basic yoga forward bend and the plow.

i also use a basic transition of child pose to cobra (updog) to compensate for the large amount of movement of the spine in the other direction.

this is the basics of how i try to incorporate a health first approach. the spine, mobilization and stabilization, being the largest problems for all of my clients. so it is what is focused on the most in the begining.

as training progresses they use these basic excercises to warm up and cool down the spine.

then i focus on the six basic excercises of kb training in a performance breathing manner. i now say exhaling through the effort (which i picked up here) but i used to say breath during the hard part and don't stop breathing. i do not, nor have i ever really taught the power breathing method. nasm includes a section on the dangers of excessive tension and its dangers to blood pressure, etc.

the two most basic excersicses of the six being the TGU and swing. in addition to the six basic excercise i utilize the

kb slingshot and its evolutions from jeff martone,
the high windmil, and its progressivly more circular evolutions,
and the kb halo and it evolution the halo deadlift, or halo swing

these are an attempt to increase the 3d gpp of my clients toward a cst ideal while not overstepping the bounds of what i feel comfortable teaching

i have completely moved away from the 5 areas of the body and corresponding excercises taught by nasm because of their limited physique based view.
core, chest, back, shoulder, legs.

the oblivously (to me) superiority of a kb system lead me to new levels of GPP. i remain in its limited system because i am not authorized to teach the cst system. i hold a great respect for nasm and nasm trainers because they equiped me with a vocabulary and anatomy knowledge which allows me to increase my understanding of other systems of physcial movement and training.

i hope this answeres your questions coach. i hope i have not offended.

Mark,

That's what I suspected. I admire your courage to step away from the mainstream. It's not easy, I know. Almost twenty years of going against the grain has been challenging for me. However, your "limitation" in teaching "health first" fitness is not in what you're authorized to teach. Your "limitation" is in how the above is organized because of what you have been taught; and more importantly what you have not yet been taught.

Although better than RKC and NASM, this still isn't "health first" perspective on fitness. It's an "attributes first" perspective. That's not as damaging to the health as "physique first" but it's still damaging, and ultimately not "health first."

CST is the first fitness system ever organized from a "health first" approach: head to toe, core to periphery, bones to skin.

When you get to a CST IC Seminar, this will all make sense for you, and you'll learn not only the organization of a "health first" fitness approach, but more importantly the tools to help your clients.

You're doing a good job by doing less damage to your clients than the mainstream. But once you learn CST, how to instruct it, and how to organize your personal practice in a "health first" format, you'll leave the others behind in a dust trail.

[wildman]

i have the greatest respect for your work coach, that is why i am here. everyday. i am here to synthesize information. i do not discount information that i have already absorbed because it is always useful to compare and contrast viewpts. i do not discount good nasm trainers because they haven't heard of your work. to me that would be like refusing to talk to buddhist at a cocktail party because i was raised christian. i see the view pts as shareing much common ground even if they have very diffent basic tenents. i look forward to learning from you first hand, and from the ground up, what a health first approach is. i am trying to organize my schedule to make february but i don't beleive that my Clubbell® athletics will be up to par by that time. i need more practice, practice, practice.

thank you for your excelent articles everyday. i'm still plowing through smoking joint to build muscle.

[AdamS.]

Mark,

I agree with you about NASM being more concerned with the health of the client than some other "mainstream" PT certs. Some PTs will simply learn a thousand-and-one ways to bench and how to get "bigger guns." The NASM format was created as a rehabilitative way to get athletes back in the game the safest and quickest way possible. Most other formats don't even take into account core and joint stability, but NASM is based on it. But, no, the training doesn't have the complexity or the depth CST has.

The least health-damaging is still far from "health first." They're just "the lepers with the most fingers."

While that is true, I think NASM heads in the right direction. They have a long way to go, but that doesn't mean there's no difference between NASM and other systems. If CST is a candle, and that high intensity bodybuilder guy whose video was posted on here is the darkness, NASM is somewhere in between. Not great, not necessarily good, but better than most.

You say that you're teaching clients from a "health first" perspective. I've never met one trainer outside of our organization make such a claim. Please explain for me what you mean by "health first" and how that specifically manifests in how you train your clients.

What my answer to this would be is that I take into account the health and ability of the client before anything else (what they want--usually fat loss, what goals they may have with sports, and especially what they look like). The way it was explained to be in my NASM training is the Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm." When I'm training a client using dumbbells, stability balls, etc., I know for a fact I'm not doing the best that could be done for them. Namely, what the different branches of CST accomplish. But, I'm limited in my training and equipment. So, I do what I can with what I have.

And it looks like Mark beat me to the punch. Darn me and my incessant proofreading

[wildman]

i should do some more proofreading, looking back i think some of my statments and arguements could have been clearer, more concise. i need to at least do a spell check. good lord...

[AdamS.]

i should do some more proofreading, looking back i think some of my statments and arguements could have been clearer, more concise. i need to at least do a spell check. good lord...

I'm an English major. Proofreading is a burden I must carry