Are Commercial Fitness Facilities the Cause of Their Members Injuries?

Written and Researched by: Greg Lomason

Let’s Get Ready to (C-) Jam!

Are Commercial Fitness Facilities the Cause of Their Members Injuries?

Part One: Developing the Importance of the Subject Matter

Growth in the Fitness Industry is projected to grow “171.75% by 2028”, and with more growth comes more fitness members trying to get in shape. (Rizzo) Common Joint Activated Machines (C-JAMs) may look like a safe alternative to new fitness members trying to achieve their fitness goals, but what if C-JAMs are helping fitness members achieve injuries instead? C-JAMs are common in many gyms and include leg extension, leg curl, bicep curl, and seated triceps extension, to name a few. While some may argue that many factors cause injury in fitness-related injuries within fitness facilities, I will point out the most common factors relative to risk are lack of knowledge and C-JAMs. These two factors detached from the other have a likelihood of causing injury, sure; however, the two in combination with each other, I argue, vastly increase the likelihood of injury. Refer to Figure 1.

Figure 1. C-JAM and the Injury Continuum:

Specific Goals ->Most Common JAMs (C-JAMs) used -> Muscles Used by C-JAMs ->“Misuse/Undereducated” on C-JAMs -> Client(s) use C-JAMs -> Muscle imbalances occur from C-JAMs without pain -> Continued Use of C-JAMs -> Injuries Develop (pain) -> Client seeks treatment -> Treatment is given -> Reinjury occurs after treatment

For the past seven years, I have been a Certified Personal Trainer (CPT), working with one of the largest privately-owned fitness facilities in the United States (Kufahl). I have trained over 20,000 clients as the head trainer, and during those seven years, I spent a portion of my time in sales management as the Personal Training Director overseeing five fitness facilities. With over 1,000 member check-ins per day, our sales were considered above average if we reached and maintained “10% total member penetration.” As part of our sales process, program directors would use two “assessments” as means to show deficits in the members’ fitness and muscular ability. These “fitness assessments” were used as sales tactics to “show them they can’t be successful” without a trainer. One could argue that this fundamental failure in the company’s program design (by using assessments as sales tactics) shows that this commercial gym put the majority of its focus into membership sales and minimal focus on education or training.

Evidence supports, this has been the status quo since the 1980s. According to Collen Gavelek, “membership renewal was the most frequently used form of assessing programs and clients” (29). Suppose “membership renewal is the basic form of evaluation of programs” (Ibid). In that case, “naturally, sales become a number one priority” (Ibid). The way these assessments and sales goals worked in practice was one in every ten “new members” who joined the gym that month was expected to become a personal training client via “training assessment.” Keep in mind that 10% conversion of the total member base to PT clients was considered “above average.” Realize that the “total member penetration” is the total number of members being introduced, connected, and actively training with CPTs. These CPTs are the employees in the gym who are certified in fitness and exercise and are considered to be the bona fide experts in the fitness facility. This “10% penetration” rate means that 90% of this particular company’s “4.9 million members” do not seek out and are not currently working with a fitness professional (Wells). This lack of interconnectedness to personal trainers poses an inherent risk of injury in one of the nation’s largest privately-owned gyms, as CPTs are the only certified “experts” employed in the commercial fitness facility. As an industry leader, one can expect that this fitness facility sets a precedent for many fitness facilities, showing a national risk for most fitness members and a fundamental flaw with how commercial gyms approach health and wellness programs (Kufahl).

This flaw worsens as most fitness facilities lack an internal education system for their CPTs to follow while training. This means there is no “in-house” support from the fitness facility for trainers to further themselves within their certification companies or pursue higher education into degrees such as Kinesiology, Exercise and Sport Science, or further into Physical Therapy. Perhaps, this is due to an industry-wide lack of higher education. In one comprehensive review of corporate and commercial program directors, Colleen Gavelek found that 42% of commercial program directors lacked college education vs. corporate programs, where almost 100% did (Gavelek 23, Table 1). Perhaps this lack of upper management education has led to an industry shortage of tuition reimbursement programs? Tuition reimbursement programs can be found in companies such as Geico, T-Mobile, and Starbucks and either entirely pays for the employee’s tuition or reimburses them for tuition (Chen). This lack of new hire training, formal education in upper management, and continuing education presents a unique issue for the CPT regarding client program design. You see, of the 10% of members that do seek professional help (Figure 2), in most cases, the CPT they work with makes up their program “as they go,” not the program director. This means that when it comes to training clientele, avoiding injury, implementing a plan of care, best practices, and proper training technique, it is entirely up to the CPTs as to how they conduct training, regardless of how experienced or educated they are. This gives a wide berth to the quality of trainer a client will receive when purchasing personal training and the quality of the fitness program, making room for injury. This failure does not lie on the CPT’s shoulders but equally between certifying agencies and fitness facilities.

Working within the fitness industry for most of my adult life, I have spent years in upper management positions on the sales and personal training sides. My experience lends a unique perspective into how the fitness industry operates and indicates how many other leaders in the industry do business: In particular, the relationship between district management and sales, the quandary between the management of sales or training staff, the management of the client/trainer relationship, the firsthand relationship between client and trainer, the failure of the fitness facility to properly educate clients and personnel, and the failure of the certifying agency to properly educate the CPT. The onus of how training is applied primarily depends on how the CPT was taught during their certification process. This burden of application poses an interesting issue as close to thirteen different certification companies exist within the United States, with each certifying agency having various requirements and ways of teaching each prospective CPT. This wide variety of certification methods attributes to the lack of a unifying message regarding the guidance and application of an injury prevention model in person. Refer to Figure 2 for a breakdown of the company model.

By the year 2028, the fitness industry is projected to have a total increase in revenue by “171.75%” (Rizzo). Over the next seven years, many factors will contribute to this, although, as with any industry, revenue will increase with high enough interest in the topic. In 2020, the Covid Pandemic hit the fitness industry hard with a “32.45% decline in revenue” across gyms/fitness facilities. However, in other areas of the industry, such as online/digital fitness and fitness equipment, the market saw a “76.7% and 65.2%” (Ibid) increase in revenue between 2019-2021, respectively. One could make the argument that Covid and its characteristic risk of mortality was a key component to driving renewed interest in fitness worldwide and diversifying that interest. One could also argue that an increased appeal in online/digital fitness and fitness equipment means many others are taking their fitness goals home. Training in a home gym without in-person guidance can add to the risk of injury. As the Covid pandemic continues into 2022, we are likely to see continual, renewed, and exponential interest in the fitness industry, leading to more members joining gyms, whether at home or as members, thus increasing national risk of injury, as more and more people will fail to connect with CPTs.

Another contributing factor to increased interest can be ascribed to recent scientific research. Research that has become widely available in recent months shows the importance of physical activity during the 2019-2022 Covid Pandemic. Published in August of 2021, the Pontzer et al. study “Daily Energy Expenditure through the human life course” shows that “age-related drops in absolute energy expenditure may be related to loss of fat-free mass and lower activity level.” This means your metabolism does not slow as you age because you are getting older, but rather because you are getting older, you tend to decrease your activity level, thus decreasing your muscle mass. This loss in muscle mass leads to an increased accumulation in fat mass, and “fatness and lack of fitness were associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality” (Blair).

A third study indicates continual growth in the industry. According to Silvio Addolorato:

In the meantime, as the standard of living becomes increasingly more comfortable, the toll on physical health becomes magnified as a result of bodily weight issues and insufficient exercise caused by super nutrition and change in work conditions (from physical to mental labor). For this reason, the Health and Fitness industry is an important contributor to every national preventative health policies against overweight and obesity lifestyles, and directly associated with the related human risk factors. Therefore, every fitness center plays an important role and, every type of available fitness amenity, is the common mean through which it is possible to meet the market demand. This has created a deep awareness of fitness for many people, forcing them to recognize the importance of daily exercise and physical activity. The high annual growth rate in the fitness and athletic equipment market, which is more than 20%, is attributed to this phenomenon. (Addolorato et al)

These studies give rise to the assertion that the fitness industry will continue to flourish in years to come. All three studies reiterate that lack of exercise directly affects your risk of mortality, death and quality of life. Thus, increasing the need and interest in physical well-being during the 2019-2022 Covid Pandemic, especially and beyond. Refer to Figure 3.

Figure 3. Industry Growth and Increased Risk to Fitness Members

Covid-19 -> Increased Interest in health -> Growth in the fitness industry -> Increase in fitness participation -> Deficiency in connecting fitness members with educated professionals -> Increase potential for injury

Since the advent of the Covid Epidemic, more than “42% of U.S. Adults” reported undesired weight gain. Of that 42%, the average weight gained was “29lbs” (Bethune). This accumulated fat mass often leads to the annual “new year’s resolution.” With these resolutions comes an influx of new and previous members to the gym, along with renewed enthusiasm for those who continue to train. The time of year lends to the next topic as much as any new venture into the gym. The topic at hand is “Goal Related Fitness Training” (GRFT). So, what is GRFT, and how could this contribute to injury? Put basically, GRFT is an approach to training that most all fitness enthusiasts, newbies, veterans, and unsurprisingly CPTs have fallen victim to in the past few years. These GRFTs include setting a fitness goal with the sole purpose of getting in shape for that specific time, place, event, or body type. The mindset of this training is to provide temporary results to the client with no genuine interest in teaching them how to exercise to improve overall well-being and quality of life.

Some examples of this are getting “in shape” for a wedding, spring break, bikini season, holiday trips, and the like and are sometimes influenced by social media and “fitness influencers,” one such case being “Summer Shredding” (Christian Guzman) popularized by the Texas native back in 2015. These GRFTs can lead to specified programming based on age, goal, and x-factor of the client, leading to injury as “people who do more activity generally have a higher risk of activity-related injury then non-activity related injury” (Jones 309). These injuries are especially prevalent in the 90% section of Figure 2 and “new members.” So how does goal related fitness training contribute to injury? I argue that the lack of education throughout commercial gyms and the lack of universal certification programs contribute to member injury.

It is common within fitness facilities for members and trainers to use one of three “training splits” as the foundation of their fitness programs. These training splits are the “upper/lower/upper split”, “push/pull/legs split”, and the “bro split.” The “bro split” is characterized by six training days with each day focused on a specific muscle “group” (chest, arms, legs, back, shoulders, auxiliary). These splits do offer a significant way to split your training volume between muscle groups, which follows the general guideline for injury prevention as described in Keith Jones’ “Fitness and Exercise Sourcebook,” which states, “Do not do strength exercises of the same muscle group on any two days in a row” (262). However, what these splits and most members/CPTs do not account for in their program is total training volume per week and effective utilization of progressive overload. This error in program design leads most trainers and members to follow programs with too much volume for their relative fitness level. As a meta-analysis explains, “Current hypertrophy training guidelines recommend the performance of 1-3 sets per exercise for novice individuals” (American College of Sports Medicine). “These guidelines are based on the perceived presence of a dose-response relationship between volume and muscle growth” with high volume eliciting greater muscle volume gains (Krieger). As Brad Shoenfeld points out “it would appear that performance of at least ten weekly sets per muscle group is necessary to maximize increases in muscle mass. Although there is certainly a threshold for volume beyond which hypertrophic adaptations plateau and perhaps even regress due to overtraining” (Shoenfeld). This threshold of volume “beyond” is what I argue most clients/CPTs fall victim to implementing in their fitness programs. I argue that the implementation of such fitness programs contributes to muscular imbalance in the muscles that protect the joints and are commonly targeted during GRFTs. These muscular imbalances are caused by oversimplification of training program “splits” in conjunction with GRFTs. These splits, listed above, are implemented without due consideration to total weekly training volume and are contraindicated by the “goal” of the client/member in relation to progressive overload.

Most “new members” to fitness facilities are starting from a net point of 0%, and this percentage is regarding their usual activity per week concerning exercise. Exercise, in this instance, is defined as a dedicated amount of time spent outside of daily activity (regardless of the difficulty of daily activity) doing a specific workout program. The American Heart Association recommends “150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity per week” which is equivalent to thirty minutes per day, five days per week (McFarland et al.). With this in mind, even a moderate thirty-minute workout twice per week is a 200% increase in most members’ daily activity. Most members and clients do not solely do aerobic activity but also strength training: “The risk of injury to bones, muscles, and joints is directly related to the gap between a person’s usual level of activity and a new level of activity” (Jones 311). One could make the case then that the previously listed Industry Fitness Growth, Lack of Penetration, Increase in Interest/Importance, and Goal Related Fitness Training (GRFTs) are leading more people to injure themselves in fitness facilities and will continue to lead to injury unless educational systems and best practices are implemented. This lack of education is ever more prevalent with commonly used joint-activated machines (C-JAMs) in fitness facilities.

Part Two: Introduction to C-JAMs and the Injury Continuum

I argue that education, or rather lack thereof, is a major contributing factor to injury within the fitness industry, regardless of goal or fitness level. This lack of education requires immediate and punitive improvement and is confounded by the use of C-JAMs in training programs which make up a majority of most commercial gyms and are used regularly by approximately “75% of gym members” (Rizzo). Many of those interested in physical fitness are members of a commercial gym, and in fact, 79% of the global fitness industry is comprised of commercial gyms (Yeung 36), with an astounding 25-40% of the floor space utilized for C-JAMs. (Haynes, Figure 4):

Figure 4: Fitness Facility Floor Plan: Industry Leader Standard

According to Keith Jones: “The safest activities are moderate intensity and low impact” which is why C-JAMs are most often chosen by members who join the gym, and these machines are often placed nearest the door, which also makes it most easily accessible (Jones 311). Unfortunately for the unsuspecting member, 11% of their counterparts quit the gym due to injury (Lloyd). This could be due to what another study found, which is that “the sense of security that comes with machines may lead to exceeding one’s capacity. Such overestimation may explain the higher proportion of overexertion injuries seen in injuries of persons who exercise with machines” (Kerr et al).

The most common manufacturer found in fitness facilities during my time (2014-2021) was Nautilus. Developed in the 1970s, the inventor Arthur Jones argued that Nautilus “made weightlifting more efficient than anything else on the market, and, thus, more effective” (Semple). However, “numerous studies have found that some of his principles — using variable resistance machines rather than free weights, and single-set, high-intensity training — do not produce greater gains than conventional weightlifting” (Ibid). This is a sentiment confirmed by the 2008 research study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning by Keith Spennewyn which “indicates a greater improvement in free-form (FF) resistance training equipment over fixed (FX) in strength (58%), and balance (196%). Additionally, the FX reported increased pain levels, while the FF group reported lowered overall pain levels.” This is further explained by Gideon Ariel:

[When a person uses any resistance device, there are two kinds of forces applied on the body—the internal forces produced by the muscular system and the external forces produced by the resistance device. The magnitude, action line, direction, and point of application are all characteristics which must be considered] … [The human body is a system of linked segments, and forces cause rotation of the parts about their anatomic axis. Pushing, pulling, lifting, kicking, running, and walking are all results of rotational motion] … [This principle, widely used throughout the entire field of biomechanics, is the Principle of Moments.] The definition of the Principle of Moments is: [the moment of a force about any point is equal to the magnitude of the force multiplied by the perpendicular distance from the action line of the force to that point.] (Ariel 200)

Concerning one commonly used joint-activated machine (C-JAM), the leg extension, I argue that as the knee extends, the moment arm changes. Thus, increasing the shear forces placed upon the knee joint at full extension. This is confirmed by Dr. Brad Shoenfeld: “since a joint is better able to withstand tensile forces from compression as opposed to shear, it, therefore, follows that leg extensions place increased stresses on the knee joint compared with multi-joint lower body exercises” (Tumminello). This is further extenuated by the knee being at full extension at the height of maximal load (Norris, Image). These factors in relation to the purposeful positioning of C-JAMs within fitness facilities show an ineptitude on the facilities’ part to prevent injury. In a study by Shannon Gray, which looked at industry-wide injuries reported by members of fitness facilities, it was found that “52.6% of all injuries sustained at fitness facilities were related to overextension/strenuous/unnatural movements” showing more evidence that perhaps the leg extension, in particular, may contribute to the injury of fitness members.

So, based on these parameters, I would propose the following for consideration:

1) Placement of C-JAMs in commercial fitness facilities

2) C-JAM’s mechanical implications on human joint physiology

3) The prevalence of C-JAMs within facilities

4) C-JAM’s lack of effectiveness in training programs

5) Implementation of GRFTs and C-JAMs in new member and current member training programs despite ineffectiveness

6) Failure to consider total weekly training volume and progressive overload

7) Common-place prescription of the aforementioned “training splits” to achieve member/client fitness goals

8) The lack of upper management, member/client, and CPT education in commercial gyms

9) And the potential of all these factors to cause muscular imbalance and acute injury

From these parameters, some questions emerge that should be addressed. For example, who has the onus of injury, and what can be done about it?

Part Three: Introducing Onus of Injury and Lack of Education as the Primary Cause of Injury

I will attempt to give potential perspectives on who has the largest responsibility to prevent injury to clients/members in the fitness industry. For example, some perspectives on injury could be that despite evidence of the ineffectiveness and possible overestimation of the benefits C-JAMs provide, they do not cause injury. Instead, lack of guidance, knowledge, understanding and accountability from CPTs and their agencies, clients/members, manufacturers, and fitness facilities are what causes injury.

Those who accept that injury is caused by the lack of guidance from Certified Personal Trainers (CPTs) fail to understand a personal trainer’s role in fitness. According to the National Federation of Professional Trainers (NFPT), the role of a CPT is to apply “fundamental exercise science and fitness program design, implement and promote the use of safe and effective exercise, and motivate and educate their clients” (NFPT). Those who believe that injury is caused by the lack of guidance (incompetence) fail to understand the amount of time, effort, and commitment to safety that CPTs must spend to become certified by their certifying organizations. However, one could argue that a CPTs certifying organization does not educate its CPTs to a level of standards necessary to avoid, spot, or prevent injury from occurring.

Those who reject a CPT’s lack of guidance for the cause of injury could argue that it is a failure on the client/fitness member’s part that has resulted in self-injury. Understanding that the client’s lack of understanding may have caused the injury is a tough pill to swallow. Yet, learning what may have caused the injury may or may not prevent them from injury. The likelihood is that they would sustain an injury with or without guidance as long as they are actively following a fitness regimen. According to Keith Jones, “more than 2.6 million 0-19 year-olds are treated in the emergency department each year for sports & recreation-related injuries; these injuries are the single most common cause of injury-related primary care office visits” (365).

So, what are the most common Sports-Related Injuries (SRIs), and how do you avoid them? Referring back to the Fitness and Exercise Sourcebook, SRIs are “muscle sprains and strains, tears of the ligaments that hold joints together, tears of the tendons that support the joints and allow them to move, dislocated joints, or fractured bones, including vertebrae” (347-349). How you avoid them comes in five easy steps: avoid “unbalanced strength training programs, bad form, exercising too hard too often workouts that rarely change, and machines that require you to adjust it to your body size;” i.e., C-JAMs (322).

A third perspective takes the responsibility away from the CPT and Client/Member. Instead, it draws the responsibility of protecting and ensuring the safety of clientele and the successful implementation of a physical fitness program on the fitness facility itself. Again, perhaps, it is the lack of accountability on the fitness facilities part in actively making sure that every member of the facility has the education and guidance necessary to help them prevent injury and achieve their goals. But, again, this may stem from the overall lack of higher education in upper management as it relates to commercial gyms.

According to Dale Hanson et al., “The Public Health Model to injury prevention, advocates, a continuum of research progresses in a stepwise manner as follows: 1. Define the problem. 2. Identify causes. 3. Develop and test interventions. 4. Disseminate and ensure widespread adoption” (147). As fitness facilities are Public Health Centers, it would be reasonable to assume that it is in the company’s interest to take more direct measures to ensure the safety of its members, even if that means removing C-JAMs from its facility and properly educating their staff. However, based on previously discussed evidence, it seems commercial fitness facilities give little attention to injury prevention or education. In addition, as previously stated, it is common practice for commercial facilities to use “assessments” as “sales tactics” in lieu of what they are intended for; which is as an assessment of physical activity readiness as listed in many certifying agencies as “health screening” documentation (McCall).

The fourth and final perspective is that which takes the responsibility of injury entirely out of the hands of the fitness facilities, CPTs, and client/members and instead places burden directly on that of the manufacturer. The manufacturers of these C-JAMs may cause injury based on a lack of understanding of human joint physiology and “shear force” when misusing C-JAMs. According to Zachary Kerr et al., “25,355 weight-training injuries were seen in the U.S. departments between 1990-2007.” Of those, approximately 7,000 people between the ages of 6-100 were injured when using machines, and 46.1% of these injuries were diagnosed as sprain/strain. In another study by Shannon Gray, “52.6% of all injuries sustained at fitness facilities were related to overextension/strenuous/unnatural movements.”

Overall, the burden of all of these perspectives is in preventing injury to the general population/clients/members and patients who enter fitness facilities. Given the supporting evidence, one could argue that the onus of responsibility to prevent injury is laid upon the shoulders of commercial fitness facilities. This onus is primarily due to the lack of education that runs throughout the entirety of the industry. Refer to Figure 5.

Considering the evidence mentioned above, I conclude that fitness facilities share the most significant portion of the “Onus of Injury” shown in Figure 5. This responsibility is simply because they “house” where all of these factors, as mentioned above, occur. See Figure 6.

The overall and most critical indication of this responsibility is the extensive lack of education prevalent throughout the industry. This is symptomatic in all aspects of the business, from the machines utilized in the fitness facility, to the fitness member, to CPTs, and the CPTs certifying agency(s). I feel confident in the following recommendations because of this lack of education in all aspects. First, I propose that fitness facilities accept responsibility in educating their employees and members foremost. Without such acceptance of their role in injury, the systematic steps necessary to prevent it cannot be implemented. However, once the majority of that responsibility is “owned,” then the following procedures can be implemented within the fitness industry:

1. Fitness facilities should change how they do in-house personal training. I argue that there is a need to implement new-hire and continual education for their CPTs beyond what certifying companies require to prevent and treat injury, such as is done within LifeTime Fitness.

2. Fitness facilities need to implement training on program design and progressive overload that stays current with the research being done in the Department of Health, Exercise and Sport Sciences.

3. Fitness facilities need to design and implement best practices nationwide that coincide with those used by physical therapists and others within the medical field.

4. Fitness facilities need to provide CPTs and program directors a way to pursue college, such as “tuition reimbursement.”

5. Fitness member and personal training client acquisition focus should be on helping those members achieve their goals and not on increasing profit, as described earlier in the “fitness assessment” portion.

In regards to fitness members (current and new) working within the gym, fitness facilities should:

1. As a membership requirement, provide introduction courses on machines, program design, nutrition, and injury prevention.

2. Provide information on why CPTs are the best route to achieve fitness goals for those with less than three years of experience in the gym.

3. Provide education classes for those members who prefer to be self-sufficient.

4. Provide an open-door policy to members who need one-on-one time.

5. Have an injury prevention specialist on-site.

In regards to C-JAMs currently being utilized in fitness facilities:

1. Fitness facilities should phase out those most commonly associated with injury and lack of effectiveness or accept the responsibility to educate fitness members and staff on the proper use of such machines.

2. Replace plate loaded and selectorized C-JAMs with machines that intuitively instruct clients and personnel on safe and effective efforts within the range of motion such as the “Q-series” machines of German-based company Milon (https://www.milon.com/int/); as shown in Jeff Nippards video at timestamp (6:05) “Crazy Training Machines in Germany!”

Once responsibility is owned by the commercial fitness facilities, the remaining onus falls to the others within Figure 6. The following recommendations are in no way indicative of what share of the responsibility each owns as the remaining is spread evenly amongst the remaining three.

In respect to Fitness Members and their acceptance of self-education and seeking guidance:

1. In regards to self:

a. Accept the responsibility of self-education as it relates to the most current and scientifically supported research and realize that education from the fitness facility will most likely come as an out-of-pocket cost.

b. Ask for help from those most qualified to teach (CPTs) and be willing to pay the out-of-pocket cost.

c. Become active in learning about your body and the proper way to prevent injury to it in the course of following a training program.

2. In regards to Fitness Facilities:

a. Realize that a fitness facility should be more than just a warehouse filled with weight lifting equipment and should be utilized to improve your quality of life both in the education of your body and mind.

3. In regards to CPTs:

a. Realize that the majority of CPTs have clients’ best interests at heart.

b. Understand what a CPT’s job is and what the responsibilities are.

c. Understand the difference between what a good CPT is and what an exceptional CPT is.

In respect to Certified Personal Trainers and their obligation to stay current with the latest research:

1. In regards to education:

a. CPTs should actively pursue higher and continued education beyond their certifications.

2. In regards to client programming:

a. CPTs should be using best practices in relation to injury prevention. None so far have been nationally established.

b. CPTs should be implementing programming that reduces the risk of injury and utilizes progressive overload in a block periodization and undulating model. This is to prevent overexertion and muscular imbalance among other things.

c. CPTs should be prioritizing alternative methods of training i.e. cross-training in lieu of C-JAMs

Regarding C-JAM Manufacturers, I ask that they accept the responsibility to provide education to fitness facilities, members, and CPTs who utilize their equipment. I ask that they do this in a more involved fashion. I ask that manufacturers either own this responsibility to educate properly or that they design more ergonomic equipment that reduces the risk of injury to those using their machines.

Penultimately, I ask that fitness facilities accept the responsibility regarding certifying agencies, NFPT, NASM, ACE, ISSA, NCSF, ACSM, NSCA, AFAA, NCCPT, and the ineffective and non-unifying message these agencies use in training their CPTs. The sheer number of agencies that certify CPTs and the gaps in education this creates for CPTs pose a curious and frustrating issue. In any other aspect of higher education, one can expect that a bachelor’s degree in any of the degree paths that fall under the “Kinesiology, Health and Sport Studies” program will receive the same fundamental education. These degree paths can lead to Graduate programs such as Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, and Athletic Training. Yet, for many CPTs, regardless of which certifying agency one obtains their certification(s) from, not one will allow the CPT to further their career path in higher education once certified. Despite the role of a CPT being to apply “fundamental exercise science” (NFPT). This quandary questions whether obtaining a certification in personal training is even necessary. I propose that the aforementioned certifying agencies collaborate in developing a certification that both teaches the application a CPT will need in their job as well as satisfying the requirements by colleges and universities to further their education. Furthermore, I request that fitness facilities and certifying agencies collaborate in bringing personal training into the realm of undergraduate and graduate degree programs. This is imperative for the fitness industry as it moves forward into the future.

In conclusion, growth in the fitness industry, lack of penetration into the fitness member population, increase in the interest and importance of fitness, and goal-related fitness training (GRFTS) will contribute to higher populations of fitness members injuring themselves moving into the future. This contribution is confounded by the fitness facilities’ focus on sales and not helping members, the lack of internal education regarding upper management and CPT onboarding, the lack of continuing education opportunities available to CPTs provided by their employing facility to pursue college or by their certifying agencies inability to adhere to university standards, and the popularized “training splits” that do not follow the most current research. This results in a threshold of volume beyond what is safe for the client’s “gap,” as described by Keith Jones, and produces a high likelihood of injury. The responsibility of which falls primarily on the shoulders of fitness facilities and certifying agencies, members/clientele, CPTs, and C-JAM manufacturers.

Part Four: Recommendations

First, my recommendations to address these issues would be to replace C-JAMs with better-made strength training machines such as the “Q-series” machines of German-based company Milon (https://www.milon.com/int/); as shown in Jeff Nippards video at timestamp (6:05) “Crazy Training Machines in Germany!”. Second, if the replacement of C-JAMs is not speedy or reasonable, I recommend that fitness facilities transition their floor layouts away from C-JAMs to accommodate cross-training techniques. In this example, Keith Jones defines cross training as “a program that works muscles and muscle groups from different parts of the body by training in more than one sport, skill, exercise routine, or task. It is different from circuit training in that it incorporates cardio, strength training, flexibility, and balance in a coordinated program” (Jones 278). This style of training addresses the issues of C-JAMs because whereas C-JAMs focus only on a specific set of muscles in a “single, repetitive workout routine and carries the risk of injury by adding stress to the set of muscles and bones involved in the activity, cross-training addresses this by bringing into play a variety of muscle groups which not only helps avoid injury but also improves overall health”(Ibid). Implementing cross-training into fitness facilities would require the education of all parties involved and require some effort; however, the benefits of such a change would be enormous. Some benefits of cross-training are as follows and are a combination of the works of Kiki Foster, Jess Williard, Colette Bouchez, and Tuvizo Sport:

1. Cross-training supports multiple fitness goals (weight loss, muscle gain, agility)

2. Putting stress on specific sets of muscles can lead to injury from overuse (C-JAMS). Cross-training, with endurance training & stretches, helps reduce or eliminate such injuries.

3. Cross-training has been proven effective in rehabilitation. It assists in the healing process and helps athletes maintain fitness levels during recovery. (qtd. in Jones 279)

Lastly, my final recommendation would be to educate all parties within the fitness facility. This can be carried out in a multitude of ways by the fitness facilities or certifying agencies, some of which are listed throughout this paper. This may be the most demanding change, yet I wholeheartedly believe it to be the most necessary to prevent injury within fitness facilities. I argue that despite the hypothetical “difficulty” of implementation, the effects would vastly outperform any single change listed above and result in increased revenue for any facility that did so. In the industry we often implore our clients/members to be the best that they can be. So the question remains, when will we start taking our own advice?

Works Cited:

Addolorato, Silvio, et al. “An Overview of the Origins and Effectiveness of Commercial Fitness Equipment and Sectoral Corporate Settings: A Critical Review of Literature.” MDPI, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 24 Feb. 2020, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/4/1534/htm.

Ariel, G., & Ariel, M. A. P. (2017). The Discus Thrower and his Dream Factory. The War between Universal and Nautilus - - Ariel Dynamics. Retrieved 1 Dec. 2021, from http://downloads.macrosport.com/Books/dreamfactory_20160512.pdf.

“The Benefits of Cross Training.” Edited by Tuvizo Sport, Tuvizo, Sept. 2014, https://tuvizo.com/blogs/tuvizo/28323971-the-benefits-of-cross-training.

Bethune, S. (Ed.). (2021, February). Slightly more than 6 in 10 U.S. adults. American Psychological Association. Retrieved 29 Nov., 2021, from https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2021/03/march-weight-change.

Blair, Steven N. “PED Revisiting Fitness and Fatness as Predictors of Mortality”, Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine: September 2003 - Volume 13 - Issue 5 - p 319-320.

Bouchez, Colette. “Cross Training Exercise Benefits and Techniques.” WebMD, WebMD, 19 Mar. 2010, https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/features/get-stronger-and-leaner-with-cross-training#1.

Chen, Andy and colleagues. “16 Companies Offering Tuition Assistance to Employees.” Glassdoor Blog, 13 Mar. 2020, https://www.glassdoor.com/blog/tuition-assistance-companies/.

“Crazy Training Machines in Germany! (& How I’m Fixing My Deadlift).” YouTube, uploaded by Jeff Nippard, Retrieved 16 Apr. 2018, https://youtu.be/OKlkyh64jlw. Accessed 5 Dec. 2021.

Foster, Laeteashai “Kiki.” “Cross Training and the Benefits of Mixing It Up.” Bon Secours InMotion Physical Therapy, 17 Feb. 2016, http://www.bonsecoursinmotion.com/cross-training-and-the-benefits-of-mixing-it-up/.

Gavelek, Colleen G., “Profile of the Corporate and Commercial Fitness Industry” (1987). ETD Archive. 332. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/etdarchive/332

Gray, Shannon E., and Caroline F. Finch. “The Causes of Injuries Sustained at Fitness Facilities Presenting to Victorian Emergency Departments - Identifying the Main Culprits.” Injury Epidemiology, vol. 2, no. 1, 2015. Crossref, doi:10.1186/s40621-015-0037-4. Accessed 29 Oct. 2021

Hanson, Dale W., et al. “Closing the Gap Between Injury Prevention Research and Community Safety Promotion Practice: Revisiting the Public Health Model.” Public Health Reports (1974-), vol. 127, no. 2, Association of Schools of Public Health, 2012, pp. 147–55, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41639490. Accessed 29 Oct. 2021

Haynes, Jessica. Site Plans Submitted For LA Fitness At Ann Arbor’s Maple Village. 2019, https://www.mlive.com/business/ann-arbor/2017/04/la_fitness_looking_at_second_a.html. Accessed 30 Nov. 2021.

Jones, Keith. Fitness and Exercise Sourcebook: Basic Consumer Health Information about the Benefits of physical fitness, including strength, endurance, longevity, weight loss, bone health, and stress management, with exercise guidelines for people of all ages and tips for maintaining motivation, measuring exercise intensity, preventing injuries, and exercising with a health condition; along with information on exercise equipment, fitness tourism, and wearable technology, a glossary of related terms, and a directory of resources for additional help and information. 5th Edition, E-book, Omnigraphics, 2017, https://dalnet-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/12nebla/01DAL_OCC_ALMA2134309220003250 Accessed in OCC Library 29 Oct. 2021

Kerr, Zachary Y., et al. “Epidemiology of Weight Training-Related Injuries Presenting to United States Emergency Departments, 1990 to 2007.” The American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 38, no. 4, 5 Feb. 2010, p. 770., https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1177/0363546509351560.

Krieger, James W. “Single vs. Multiple Sets of Resistance Exercise for Muscle Hypertrophy: A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: April 2010 - Volume 24 - Issue 4 - p 1150-1159 doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d4d436

Kufahl, Pamela. “Club Industry’s Top 100 Health Clubs of 2020.” Club Industry, 31 Dec. 2020, https://www.clubindustry.com/top-100/club-industry-s-top-100-health-clubs-2020.

Larcom, A. B. (2019, 23 Dec.). 5 things that will help your gym members stick to their exercise... IHRSA. Retrieved 28 Nov., 2021, from https://www.ihrsa.org/improve-your-club/5-things-that-will-help-your-gym-members-stick-to-their-exercise-habits/.

Lloyd, Nathan. “Surprising Gym Membership Statistics.” Expert Fitness, 23 Sept. 2021, https://expertfitness.org/surprising-gym-membership-statistics/.

McCall, Pete. “Everything You Need to Know about the Par-Q.” NASM, National Academy of Sports Medicine, n.d., https://blog.nasm.org/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-par-q.

McFarland et al, J. (Ed.). (2018, 18 Apr.). American Heart Association recommendations for physical activity in adults and kids. American Heart Association. Retrieved 29 Nov., 2021, from https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/fitness/fitness-basics/aha-recs-for-physical-activity-in-adults.

Norris, Richard. “Patellofemoral Pain - Runner’s Knee.” The Knee Resource, 6 Aug. 2020, https://thekneeresource.com/conditions/patellofemoral-pain/.

Pattengale, Angie. “What’s the Role of a Certified Personal Trainer?” National Federation of Professional Trainers, NFPT, 16 Oct. 2018, https://www.nfpt.com/blog/whats-the-role-of-a-certified-personal-trainer. Accessed 29 Oct. 2021

Pontzer, H. (2021, 13 Aug.). Daily Energy Expenditure Through the Human Life Course. Science. Retrieved 29 Nov., 2021, from https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe5017 and https://gurven.anth.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/sitefiles/papers/pontzeretal2021.pdf

“Progression Models in Resistance Training for Healthy Adults : Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.” Edited by Ira Jacobs, American College of Sports Medicine, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, Mar. 2009, https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2009/03000/Progression_Models_in_Resistance_Training_for.26.aspx.

Rizzo, Nicholas. “Fitness Industry Statistics 2021–2028 [Market Research].” RunRepeat, 12 Oct. 2021, https://www.runrepeat.com/fitness-industry.

Schoenfeld, Brad & Ogborn, Daniel & Krieger, James. (2016). “Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Journal of Sports Sciences. 35. 1-10. 10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197.

Semple, Kirk. “The Rise Of The Machines (Published 2007)”. Nytimes.Com, 2007, https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/weekinreview/02semple.html.

Spennewyn, Keith. “Strength Outcomes in Fixed versus Free-Form Resistance... : The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, National Strength and Conditioning Association, Jan. 2008, https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2008/01000/strength_outcomes_in_fixed_versus_free_form.12.aspx.

“Summer Shredding 2015 (Episode 01).” YouTube, uploaded by Christian Guzman, 26 Apr., 2015, https://youtu.be/KAbPzdmp4c8. Retrieved 29 Nov., 2021

Tumminello, Nick. “Are Leg Extensions Good or Bad, Safe or Dangerous, Effective or a Waste of Time, Functional or Nonfunctional? - Exercise Expert Brad Schoenfeld Has the Surprising Answers!” Strength Zone Training, 3 Jan. 2021, https://www.strengthzonetraining.com/are-leg-extensions-good-or-bad-safe-or-dangerous-effective-or-a-waste-of-time-functional-or-nonfunctional-exercise-expert-brad-schoenfeld-has-the-surprising-answers/.

Wells, J. R. (2016, 3 Oct.). The Quiet Ascension of LA Fitness. Harvard Business Publishing Education. Retrieved 29 Nov., 2021, from https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/717424-PDF-ENG.

Williard, Jess. “3 Reasons You Should Try Cross-Training.” Men’s Journal, 16 Mar. 2020, https://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/3-reasons-try-cross-training/.

Yeung, Ophelia, and Katherine Johnston. “Move To Be Well: The Global Economy Of Physical Activity.” Global Wellness Institute, 2019, https://globalwellnessinstitute.org/industry-research/global-economy-physical-activity/.