UnderGround Forums
 

S&C UnderGround >> Standardization of Exercise Names


11/12/12 11:53 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Fledgling PT
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/5/12
Posts: 2
 
One problem I have with naming exercises is that many people call them different things. This seems to be especially true for body weight exercises, for example : slingshots, boot sniffers etc etc.

Could there ever be anyway these are classified as standard terms?
11/12/12 12:12 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
turducken
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11/12/12 12:12 PM
Member Since: 1/7/09
Posts: 11453
if you are doing exercises that don't already have standardized names, you are probably wasting your time with some fad type movement. all of the classics that have been getting people strong and big for generations are well known: deadlift, squat, pullup, bench press, overhead press, curl, pushup, dip, etc.
11/12/12 10:15 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
419
9 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/12/00
Posts: 23091
I thought this was going to be another 'make up a crossfit workout' thread.
11/13/12 12:34 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Chocolate Shatner
194 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 32035
The proliferation of terminology in the fitness industry is a long running problem. Honestly, the reasons lie in many areas.

1. The desire for certification groups or authors to make money. Few trainees or students are impressed with "bench press." However, if you can state that you are teaching someone a "prone barbell tranverse press" (with possibility of adding a BOSU!) you can fool quite a few tards into giving you money.

This is true not just in exercises. Christ alone knows how many different ways different groups talk about people with shoulders that are rounded forward, or toes that point outward, or hips that are off level.

2. Its a good way to hide the insecurity of a trainer. The fact is, a lot of clients are going to ask you questions at some point. For example "Why are we doing squats with a barbell?" or "Hey, what about....?"

Now, sometimes these questions are just trainees trying to bullshit you. Other times, it is them asking an honest question because they may have either read or seen someone doing something different than what you have them do.

At this point, a lot of trainers will lapse into jargon-babble, trying to make their shit sound more important than it is, or to try and at least shut the client up because the client has no fucking clue what you are saying (even though it sounded impressive).

As a trainer, you should have confidence that what you are planning for a client is what is best for them at the time. You need to be able to convey this in simple, direct, clear language, and not be mucking shit up with jargon or certification-speak that is really saying "I have no fucking clue what I'm doing, and I just want you to give me your money."
11/13/12 5:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ArthurKnoqOut
43 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/6/10
Posts: 1894

To some degree, I agree with Chocolate Shatner. 

However, with certain things like bodyweight stuff, since it's rather universal, it's hard to "standardize" it. Look at the "Hindu push up". It's obviously not called that in the Indian subcontinent from which it hails. It's used in Indian "wrestling" as well as, being a surya namahskara, the "sun salutation" but it also veered off into the "dive bomber push up" via whatever historical path it took but isn't QUITE the same thing. 

It's kind of when we talk about a certain choke or take down in wrestling, Judo, BJJ, etc and different names those techniques hold because of their origins and although BJJ may resurect a certain technique from the past, it shares it with another art because the body only has so many ways it can/may move. 

11/13/12 6:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Chocolate Shatner
194 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 32044
AKO, I agree that there are certain things that will never be standardized. As you mentioned, the variations of pushups.

But let's be honest, some of these names were created by people through a million and a half miles of justifications, all to come to the conclusion that they just wanted to re-name shit for the sake of sounding different.

I am not shitting you when this week I read an article that mentioned a "bilateral parallel stance barbell back squat."

Took me a few seconds to realize they meant a fucking squat.
11/14/12 10:16 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ArthurKnoqOut
43 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/6/10
Posts: 1895

for sure. I forgot to mention that as in BJJ there's that whole school of 10th planet JJ and their "names". When that whole thing happened with KZ pulling off the "wrestlers guillotine" only for Joe to start praising it as the "Twister".

 

haha funny story VTFU

11/15/12 12:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Taku
163 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11/15/12 2:39 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6286

C.S. Agreed...There is a group right now trying to create a "Universal" nomenclature for exercise description / standardization. Unfortunately their choice of naming is so complicated it looks and sounds a lot like what you mentioned above.

I gues i understand the goal...But ultimately feel that (as you said) it's mostly just an attempt to differentiate themselves and or look cool. I prefer Leigh's K.I.S.S. approach.

TAKU

11/16/12 12:40 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Chocolate Shatner
194 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 32074
Yeah, looking at that TAKU I gotta agree it sounds like someone just re-inventing the fucking wheel. Just looking at their cert page makes me wanna laugh. A 60 hour course that supposedly covers "all major Exercise Sciences"? LOL.
11/16/12 11:51 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Taku
163 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6291

C.S. Yep...If you're talking about the "Bridging Course", I took it. It was a bear...just because there was so much stuff to get through. I only took a course from them beause I could do so for free through a company I was working with at the time. I would not bother with anything they offer, if I had to pay.

Talk about getting too deep...

TAKU

11/16/12 5:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Chocolate Shatner
194 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 32080
Yeah, the cost was a bit high also IMO. I understand that education costs money, but let's face it, unless there is something behind that money, you are just paying for some paper.

I think I've said it previously, but most wanna be "trainers" can learn more by spending 3-5 days (even better, 3-5 months) studying with someone like you or Doug or many others (I think I used an NCAA Div 1 strength coach last time) than any $800 cert class.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.