Evidence Based Workouts

Why It’s Harder Than It Looks

There’s a strange thing that happens when an industry grows fast. Standards drop.

The fitness industry is no exception. Let's be honest: the fitness world is a very noisy place right now. Seems like it is on steroids! Demand for trainers has exploded. Gyms are everywhere. Online programs are everywhere. Social media "experts" are a dime a dozen. And yet, the quality of training people actually receive is wildly inconsistent. This isn’t just a veteran trainer's rant. I can be crochety but sometimes my gripes are valid. We need more trainers who understand science and evidence based workouts.

A recent paper looking at how fitness trainers make programming decisions basically confirms this uncomfortable truth: there is no consistent industry wide approach to how trainers decide what to do with the real, complex human body standing in front of them. There are lots of bro-science trainers doing their thing but don't mistake that for the real deal.

While working at Reebok Sports Club, one of my responsibilities was to inquire why trainers selected specific programs for clients. They had to justify their decisions. Fortunately, there isn't just one correct, evidence-based approach. However, some trainers consistently used the same program for everyone, regardless of whether the client was a grandmother or a young athlete. This is not the way.

The fitness industry’s dirty little secret

In many places, the barrier to entry to become a trainer is frighteningly low. Sometimes that means a weekend course. Sometimes that means self-teaching. Sometimes that means just being naturally good at pull-ups and owning a tight tank top. It would be nice for everyone to earn a quality certification but believe it or not that's not needed. There is nothing stopping the reader from going out tomorrow and starting a personal training business. No certification, no experience....no problem. But as you can imagine this is a huge problem.

Many trainers are taught how to demonstrate exercises, not how to decide which exercises belong in a program, and why. The 'why' is a critical lever for programming. Why are you doing this exercise? Why this one not another one? Why now, not later? Why 10 reps or why 12? Why rest 30s or 90s? etc. This is a massive deal. Because intelligent programming is not about how many exercises you can name or invent. There are no inherently bad exercises just bad applications. Programming is about how you choose them, how you progress them, and how you adjust them when real life happens.

What the research found about trainer decision making

The researchers interviewed trainers and used a decision-making model called Cognitive Continuum Theory. Fancy name, simple idea.

Good decisions usually fall somewhere between:

• Rigid rules with zero flexibility

• Pure intuition with zero structure

What they found is that trainers tend to use different decision styles depending on the setting, and that the setting itself often pushes them toward less individualized, cookie-cutter choices.

Personal training vs group classes

The biggest practical takeaway is obvious but still worth spelling out.

Personal training allows for better decision making because feedback is constant, specific, and context dependent.

Group training makes that much harder, because one trainer is managing a room full of moving bodies at once. Groups are not homogeneous. Exercise history, physiology, contraindications, motivations, kinematics etc are all different. That does not mean group classes are inherently bad. It just means they are limited by design. Everyone does the same thing no matter their individual differences.

Group classes often lean on:

• Templates

• Fixed workouts

• One size fits most progressions

• Energy and entertainment as a substitute for individualization

You can still get a good sweat from that, but it is not the same as an intelligent program built around your unique capacity, your goals, and your orthopedic constraints.

When exercise becomes performance art

The paper also touches on something I see constantly. As gyms grow, many adopt franchise or licensing systems. These systems provide pre-made workouts, branded methods, and strict rules so the experience is uniform. Cue CrossFit, Orange Theory etc. That helps the business scale. It does not always help trainers think. Instead of developing professional judgment and mastering micro-progressions, trainers often get rewarded for:

• Looking confident

• Being charismatic

• Sounding like a specialist

• Delivering a high-energy experience

At that point, credibility becomes less about competence and more about presentation. Fitness becomes theater. Sometimes it's great theater. Sometimes it's community building theater. Sometimes it's just plain fun. But it is still physical theater.

Self teaching is not the same as education

Continuing education in fitness is often entirely self directed.

That can be great if the trainer has strong fundamentals and knows how to critically evaluate information. Certain certifications require rigorous, evidence-based continuing education. For example, my National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) certification—the gold standard—requires 40 hours per year of evidenced-based education across several different subjects. I can't go to Instagram and get my CECs.

Self teaching can also be a total mess, because the sources trainers use can include:

• Social media content

• Influencers selling certainty

• Courses designed primarily as marketing funnels

• New methods that sound smart but have weak science behind them

If someone does not understand the basics of exercise prescription, giving them more tools does not make them better. It makes them more confident while being wrong.

Which is a terrifying combo.

More training does not mean better training

Fitness culture loves to reward "more." More sessions. More exercises. More sweating. More soreness. More novelty.

We've all heard the "No Pain, No Gain" dogma. I don't accept it. "More" is not a metric of quality. How hard you train matters, but you don't need to lift to failure every time to see results.

The paper highlights that many trainers do not consistently assess progress or monitor fitness changes in a structured way. That leads to a common pattern:

• People feel worked

• People feel sore

• People feel like they did something

• Six months later, nothing meaningful has changed physically

If the plan does not include progression and feedback, it is basically just a workout playlist. You are working out, but you are not training.

What evidence based training actually looks like

Evidence-based training is not glamorous. It shouldn't feel like a minefield where you're constantly worried about making a wrong move.

It is often simple. It is often repetitive. Frankly, it often looks underwhelming on Instagram.

It involves:

• Assessing what actually matters

• Choosing a program that fits the person (context is everything!)

• Tracking progress over time

• Adjusting load, volume, and difficulty based on how your body responds

• Building capacity, not just chasing a burn, pain relief, or fatigue

It requires patience from the client, and absolute honesty from the coach. And sometimes the most professional thing a trainer can say is: “We need more time.”

Why this matters

Inactivity is a real public health problem. Chronic disease is expensive. Exercise helps, but only when it is done well enough to be sustainable, safe, and progressive.

Poor training wastes your time, money, trust and maybe even your body. Evidence-based coaching matters because it respects the client as an individual person, not just a recurring revenue stream. It produces results using the scientific method. Luckily there are lots of ways to do this.

A simple reality check for clients

If you are not sure whether your training is actually getting you somewhere, ask yourself (or your trainer):

• How are we measuring progress besides how exhausted I feel right after a session?

• What is the plan for progression?

• What changes are being made based on my physical & psychological responses?

• How is this plan making me more resilient and building capacity?

• Do I feel like I'm progressing?

If the answer is "Don't worry, just work harder and come more often", then you are with the wrong trainer.

Final thought

Good training should take you out of your comfort zone without being unpleasant. It should make you stronger, more confident, and help you reach your goals.

As always, remember: you can’t go wrong getting strong.

Want more evidence-based fitness content? Follow along as we separate science from marketing in the world of health and fitness at Joachim’s Training.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.Oi, C. P., Vijayan, S. K., & Ler, H. Y. (2024). Qualified fitness trainers practice scientifically based judgement in prescribing exercise programs. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 74, 102659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2024.102659