[Ceviesef-L] Prescricao de Exercicios (msg longa)

To: Conselho Federal de Educacao Fisica <confef@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dirigentes de CREFs <cevconcref-L@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dirigentes de IES - EF <ceviesef-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Ceviesef-L] Prescricao de Exercicios (msg longa)
From: Laercio Elias Pereira <laercio@xxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 18:44:44 -0300
Srs. Dirigentes,
Precisamos acompanhar o movimento interncional
sobre exercicios. Segue msg enviada para algumas
listas de especialistas. Laercio.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Prescricao de Exercicios (msg longa)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 18:40:18 -0300
From: Laercio Elias Pereira <laercio@xxxxxx>
To: Lista Personal <cevperst-L@xxxxxxxxxx>,Treinamento Desportivo
<cevtrein-L@xxxxxxxxxx>,Medicina Desportiva <cevmedes-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
Pessoal,
A discussao sobre a habilitacao profissional para
a prescricao de exercicios esta´ pegando fogo no 
indispensavel forum da SporScience <http://www.sportsci.org>
(Publicacao Eletronica e encontro internacional permanente 
dos profissionais de Ciencias do Esporte, com sede na 
Nova Zelandia - poderia ser em qualquer lugar, mano; 
e´ na Internet). O Prof Jamie Scott, piloto da questao, 
fez uma sumario das opinioes. E´ bom conferir. Laercio
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Summary: National Registration of Exercise Prescribers
From: jamie scott <profitnessrbt@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
To: forum@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Here is a summary of the responses so far to my comments on Registration
of 
Exercise Prescribers. I apologize for the length of this summary, but I 
didn?t want to sell anyone short. There have been some excellent 
responses, and I have found myself nodding in agreement at most. This
is 
obviously a global issue. Hopefully it will be one that generates
enough 
momentum for changes to occur.
Jamie Scott, BSc BPhEd
Nutrition & Exercise Consultant
cell: +64 21 654 342
email: jamie_scott@xxxxxxxxxxx
Alexandre de Oliveira wrote:
Man, I totally agree with you! I see stuff like you
described happening a lot! At the gym I go to, for
instance, there?s a responsible Physical Educator and
another instructor who goes to P.E. college there, but
there are a couple of others who are just "experienced" bodybuilders
that 
make physical evaluations of the gym goers, prescribe exercises,
etc.
Enid Brown wrote:
I live in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and the situation here is
identical to the one you describe. There is no legislation regarding
standards for personal fitness trainers, nutritionists, etc...
In Manitoba we have been wrestling with the problem
of industry standards and the solution we have recently
implemented is to certify only those individuals with a degree in
exercise science who have taken specific courses (there are 11 of
them, e.g. anatomy, fitness, physiology, exercise psychology,
etc). These people will also have to pass a written and practical
exam and possess certifications in cardiopulmonary resuscitation,
first aid, and fitness assessment (all national programs).
.... We are also looking into the feasibility of licensure (i.e. 
legislation to enforce standards) because our new certification standard 
has no "teeth". Anyone can still call themself a personal trainer with
no 
sanction.
Ben Sporer wrote:
I am from Victoria, Canada and the problem you have described is
something 
we have been experiencing with frustration for quite some time. More
so, 
the past few years the problem seems to have
exploded since there has been a big push for exercise rehabilitation.
Although you need a degree to work in a clinical setting, local
community 
centers have been offering "personal trainers" weekend courses in
Cardiac 
Rehab, Exercise Therapy, with no formal certification or association
with a 
recognized body. You can imagine the problems this has created with more 
unqualified people calling themselves specialists in these areas while
they
are anything but? The problem is that it has put degree holders on the
same 
page as anyone off of the street? As you can see, big discrepancies in
the 
quality and quantity of knowledge.
Currently in British Columbia (and across Canada) we have formed an 
Association of Kinesiologists (BCAK). BCAK along with the national body
is 
pushing for professionalization of Kinesiologists as well as reserving 
several of the other terms that are sometimes associated with our field.
Right now it is early in the stages so I'm not sure how it will work out 
exactly but I think it is the right step.
Michael Green wrote:
It is indeed a shame that people can declare themselves to be something 
that they really aren't. Not only is it dangerous, but it flies in the
face 
of what bonafide health professional?s want-"professionalism."
Aside from the accreditation question you posed, is it not perhaps vital
that employers ensure they are hiring people who are qualified to advise
people about their health. If employers adopt a standard and stick to
it, 
which they should, they would ensure that people would have to seek some 
form of accreditation.
Nancy Dickman wrote:
Australia has had an accreditation process since 1986. We have state 
fitness councils and a national body FIA (Fitness Industry of Australia)
Briefly, how it works:
1.You undertake training with an accredited provider + (? not sure of
details) practical hours + first aid certificate + CPR certificate; for
original registration
2. Each year registration must be renewed. This means producing proof of
certain number of hours face to face instruction + renew CPR + renew 
fitness first aid + have attended (or home study) prescribed number of
work 
shops in your specified field (eg personal training, fitness leader etc)
to 
accumulate CECs (continuing education credits).
Drawbacks of this system:
It is costly and time consuming (esp if you do not live in a capitol
city) 
to the individual.. but
Benefits of this system:
1. Registerd fitness leaders have access to an affordable insurance
cover
(approx AUS$200 per annum) for professional indemnity and public
liability
(to AUS$5 million each).
2. Employers can state registration as an essential criterion in job
descriptions.
Matt Madsen wrote:
The situation is the same in the US...In any industry, the people in it 
want barriers to entry to reduce competition for their services.
Do you think the government understands athletic training? Do you
think I shouldn't be allowed to recommend a high-protein diet or
Olympic weightlifting, because "experts" in power say it's unsafe?
That is, of course, what having government licensing leads to.
Most people get their training advice from other gym-goers, friends,
etc. Getting advice from a former competitive bodybuilder may seem
sub-optimal, but it's hardly dangerous -- and many people want to
train toward the same goals.
Should an Olympic pole-vaulter not be allowed to train me to vault
because he's not licensed? Should a martial artist not be allowed to
teach me his art because he's not licensed?
Jamie Scott wrote in reply to Matt Madsen:
My original inquiry was not about setting up barriers of entry so as to
reduce competition. And I think you will find that most doctors and 
physios would also take issue with being told that their registration
was a 
form of patch protection.
Do you think the government understands sports medicine, or rehabilitive 
practices? This is why governments set up boards of advisors,
committees 
etc, made up of people usually from a wide cross-section, to provide
advice 
on these issues.
I was trying not to infer that all body-builders do not know what they
are 
talking about. And sure, who best to advise someone wanting to compete
in 
body building than someone who has been there, done that. But when a
body 
builder starts trying to correct someone with anorexia, or prescribes an 
individual just recovering from knee reconstruction with plyometric
depth 
jumps (resulting in patellotendon rupture), yes it is dangerous. Both 
examples have occurred where my business is based. I would suggest that 
this is dangerous and that these are people acting way beyond their
depth 
of knowledge. But with no regulation, what is to stop this happening
again?
...Does being an Olympic pole-vaulter automatically make a person
ideally 
qualified to prescribe exercise for health, weight loss, rehab, etc. If 
your Olympic pole vaulter claimed to be a respiratory specialist for 
example, but was not registered, would you see him/her or someone who
was 
trained and registered?
Matt Maden also wrote:
[with regard to registration limiting competition] It clearly [does] 
though. Certainly not all doctors see it that way, but
it's definitely a barrier to entry. Most medical services do not
require a doctor with a doctor's full (expensive) education, most
dental services do not require a dentist's (or even a hygienist's)
full eduction, etc., but cheaper alternatives are literally illegal.
Requiring licensing could make any alternatives literally illegal, not
just 
not covered by insurance.
Who's hiring the local gym bodybuilder for anorexia treatment or knee
rehab? Frankly, that involves two incompetent people: client and
trainer. We can't legislate away stupidity.
...You don't need to legislate against every activity that
might conceivably harm someone. If someone harms you, you can sue
them. (I don't really want to get into legal issues though.)
...if a personal trainer claimed to know about
physical fitness but couldn't answer basic questions and had no
credentials, I wouldn't trust him either. But that's my choice.
Someone else might just want someone to set up weights and count reps... 
--------
View all messages at http://sportsci.org/forum. Click on the links 
to JOIN, UNJOIN, alter MAIL OPTIONS, or get INFO/HELP on acceptable 
messages.
<Anterior em Tópico] Tópico Atual [Próximo em Tópico>
  • [Ceviesef-L] Prescricao de Exercicios (msg longa), Laercio Elias Pereira <=

© 1996-2018 Centro Esportivo Virtual - CEV.
O material veiculado neste site poderá ser livremente distribuído para fins não comerciais, segundo os termos da licença da Creative Commons.