I had my first double macchiato this morning. I ventured away from my usual americano to see what all the fuss was about and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised…doesn’t last as long though. Maybe that’s a good thing depending on the company I guess. However this morning it was accompanied with some good S&C chat and a challenge set to write a blog around the macchiato. So hence about trying something new.

I think this is a very tough thing to get right as a coach. The S&C community is a very active and open one which is a hugely positive thing, but it means there are a million and one training ideas floating around and it’s almost a daily occurrence stumbling upon something that you like the look of. So how do you introduce your new protocols? What are your criteria for inclusion? Do you have a probation period? I’m going to open this up to the audience so please add comments below, but some of my (fairly basic) ideas around this are;

• I have to try it and like it
• It has to do something as good as or better than something I already do
• It has to be logistically plausible
• It has to have some kind of progression of fit in with other progressions

In the few days a week I work at Profeet in their running lab analysing people’s gait and I’ve been noticing something recently, picking up a few patterns. The ability of a high proportion of people to stabilise the hip joint while running, even at very slow speeds, is pretty poor. In essence Trendelenburg gait is frighteningly commonplace.

In reaction to a stance leg glute med weakness you see a hip drop on the swing side, this is either with a good upper body alignment or coupled with an upper body lean over the stance leg to lever the swing side up. In either case, it needs some work. Plenty of activation work and improvement of awareness are needed to help with this, even just to train the movements. For example, doing hip hikes incorrectly could exacerbate the problem rather than make it better.

The tough thing is that you might not know you’re doing it. It’s difficult to pick up with the naked eye while watching people run, this is one reason why I like gait analysis as a movement screen, you can pick lots more with a slowed down video.

It’s something I’ve had on my mind for a while. There was some fairly furious debate on twitter in the New Year and it gives the distinct impression of battle lines being drawn. So, what’s the difference between a strength and conditioning coach and a personal trainer? I get this a lot when I tell people what I do “so, you’re kind of like a personal trainer right?”

Am I? I coach athletes as well as general population. Some people use that as a dividing line. But I know plenty of other S&C coaches who “do personal training” too, you know, to pay the bills. It’s like a dirty word, something they’re ashamed of. I enjoy it, it’s great for my coaching (so many different movement patterns to work on and cue) and very rewarding to see people attain their goals be that becoming pain free or completing a 10k for the first time.

So are S&C coaches just better than personal trainers? There are plenty of personal trainers helping their athletes (or clients) lose weight, get fitter, feel better about themselves and enjoy longer life and are very good at it. They have to motivate people who aren’t very motivated, provide encouragement to and engage with people who have very low self esteem and body image difficulties as S&C coaches have to. I’m sure there are poor personal trainers about as I’m sure there are bad S&C coaches too. Given the size of the market for personal training, PTs are certainly are better than S&Cs at marketing.

Qualifications? Plenty of personal trainers have sport science degrees. Plenty don’t. The same in S&C. The majority of PTs will have a REPS qualification, I haven’t done one so I’m not in a place to comment on the quality. S&C has undergrad and postgrad degrees and an industry qualification designed to provide a level of quality assurance. Not all coaches have any of them, plenty of coaches don’t have a UKSCA accreditation and criticise the qualification. As far as I can see, there’s not a lot else that’s available to separate the two professions.

Lots of PTs say they’re strength and conditioning coaches and what’s to stop them? If the field itself doesn’t take the qualification seriously, then why should anyone else? This should be the seal of approval to give peace of mind to athletes and general population that the person they’re hiring is of a certain standard and that they remain there. There’s a reaccreditation process to ensure that people update their skill sets and continue to develop knowledge and experience, simply remaining accredited should mean that the coach at least remains at a certain standard.