Certifications
I'm not a big fan of certifications. In my previous post, I said if you're not learning, then you're not getting better. So how can I not like certifications? Let me explain.
I obtained my CSCS in 1998. I studied for the test, did very well and got certified. I then managed to use this credential to help me get a job as a strength coach at UCLA. Great school, great staff. I learned a ton from these coaches and my knowledge about strength and conditioning grew quickly. I also learned a ton from Mike Burgener. He taught me stuff that works in the real world and isn't taught in any NSCA certification courses.
The NSCA does a decent job of providing information. But it is a political organization that wants to make money. It basically provides dumbed down info and "faddish" trends to its members...charging them through the nose for the info and for memberships. A couple years ago, I had to renew my CSCS. I sent in my money and form and showed them what I had been doing to maintain my education as a coach. I listed my CrossFit certification as something I had done to enhance my knowledge. The NSCA told me they could not recognize (and give me credit for) the CrossFit certification. They do not recognize CrossFit and since I had obtained a certification at the event, the NSCA would not accept it as continuing education.
Hmmmm. This coming from an organization that has never gone past the 3x10, 4 exercises per muscle group, target heart rate is 220-age standard garbage you read in any beginner's textbook. They do some good basic stuff...but that is it. It's like AT&T calling it quits with the telegraph but still considering itself a leader in the telecommunications industry. And the arrogance to not accept LEARNING, regardless of whether a certification is obtained, is ridiculous. I guarantee you 80%+ of those who work for the NSCA are candidates for rhabdo.
So where do you learn? Read. Try things out for yourself. Talk to your workout partners and to the guys you meet at CrossFit events. But doing is the best way to learn.
An NSCA course is usually a talking head giving mumbo jumbo in a classroom. CrossFit certs kick your ass and let you know where you stand. Burgener's USAW course makes you sore from lifting a 2lb piece of PVC....a thousand times. That's where you need to be to learn. The NSCA believed CrossFit is not good enough for them. They were wrong...the NSCA isn't good enough for anyone who wants to go out and learn and borrow from all sorts of fitness philosphies. To me the NSCA is like my son's diapers: They are good to have at first, but you find out they're full of shit and you can't wait till you don't need them anymore. Out.
posted by USD STRENGTH @ 12:03 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Right on Brother!
Josh Everett: CSCS
seriously though...The reason why the crossfit cert does not count for CEU's for the NSCA is only NSCA sanctioned events earn CEU's. Crossfit would have to pay the NSCA for the sanction. Glassman has no interest(or need) in paying this fee or attracting the NSCA crowd to his events.
CrossFit certs kick your ass and let you know where you stand.
Well put. If you're serious, you really can't ask or expect more.
The ONLY reason I keep my CSCS is for the insurance. And I got mine in 1985. Their journals are a bad joke, 4th tier at best. They offer nothing of value except the insurance.
There is a paper in the JSCR last quarter that claims that eye gaze in the squat should be directed upward. In this paper there is no definition of the squat -- no performance criteria, no description, nothing. Their standards are so ludicrously inadequate that a freshman error like this gets through peer-review.
Only for the insurance. And their carrier let me name CF as co-insured.
Rip
The ONLY reason I keep my CSCS is for the insurance. And I got mine in 1985. Their journals are a bad joke, 4th tier at best. They offer nothing of value except the insurance.
There is a paper in the JSCR last quarter that claims that eye gaze in the squat should be directed upward. In this paper there is no definition of the squat -- no performance criteria, no description, nothing. Their standards are so ludicrously inadequate that a freshman error like this gets through peer-review.
Only for the insurance. And their carrier let me name CF as co-insured.
Rip
It's hard to add to Stephane, Josh, and Rip. I too have my CSCS for the recognition it brings and the insurance. It's one of the better certs, but I guess that's like being one of the better diapers!
The NSCA relies too heavily on lab rat studies of untrained college students and not enough on field work. In fact, that's pretty much their charter.
If a program uses "scientific studies" as the basis for their workouts, the best you can ever hope for is well-trained beginners.
Linc
Great rant. I had to renew my 'national' (wothless)cert in Oct. I also keep mine due to the discounted liability insurance. The accepted CEC's were also worthless, but I had to pay for them in spite of the fact that I knew the answers to the tests were bunk.
That was real talk! Most training is learned in the field and I can't stand Pt's that preach science and technique, but don't no how to demonstrate or even practice what they preach!
`metamorphsis
-Keep grinding!
Keep chugging the Kool-Aid, folks. CSCS is a much harder exam I am betting most of you CF Level 1 only holders could not pass it.
I hold both.
I find that Crossfitters are much more exclusive and unnecessarily blind themselves to ideas that do not come from God Himself (Glassman).
Both have their merits but the CSCS is much more widely recognized and for good reason. It applies to a much broader range of Strength and Conditioning than Crossfit does alone. Different sports require special areas of strength. Try training an Elite shot putter using Crossfit methodology alone. They will be crushed.
Expand your horizons, people.
Post a Comment
<< Home