Face To Face
I will preface this by admitting that I am confounded by the misunderstanding that surrounds remotely-guided physical training today; sending a list of exercises to someone is not coaching.
To train people for a specific outcome, we believe it is crucial that training happens live and in person. We have done this many times in the past decade, and we have also participated in "best-case scenario" remote coaching; they are inherently different in their requirements and the results. Objections to this rarely address efficacy, rather they are biased toward personal monetary gain, and mislead people into believing that remote coaching is as effective as an in-person experience.
Coaching in-person is demanding. It differs energetically from formulating workouts, which raises important questions regarding the root of the difference: why are human interaction and teaching so costly, and is there any equal substitution for face-to-face interaction? If so, what is it? And if you disagree please show proof of the equivalency.
I can write a workout, email it or leave it on the board for others to interpret and do. They can write down their performance and reaction to it, perhaps recording a video—and by all ordinary standards—I have just participated in what the average person would call "coaching." There was no real energetic demand or cost to me, and I can copy and paste this 1000 times before someone notices and questions what they are purchasing from me. I could even write 1000 different workouts, call it "individual," and aside from the time required to accomplish it, not be worse for wear. Without question, creating generic training plans and remote coaching are profitable. It is the only way, in some cases, to make a living as a coach, but that doesn't mean it's the right way. Or effective.
Coaching in-person is different, the energy required is exponential, and the outcome is incomparable. Coaching starts by trying to apprehend a client's true nature, not just what they broadcast. Observing body language, habits, and lifestyle choices often reveals more than simple conversation. That said by the time someone drops their items off, hangs their coat, and climbs onto a bike to warm up, I've already begun modifying my preliminary plan. I had an idea of what I wanted them to do, outlined during the days prior to the session, but I've felt and learned enough during the client's arrival and warm-up that the actual training might not resemble my prediction in any way.
The ability to adapt to immediate circumstances is the greatest advantage of in-person coaching. I shift emphasis according to what I want the outcome to be, and whether it should be a positive or negative outcome. Most sessions—especially for beginners—are distinctly positive. If, however, I plan for a negative result, I must know whether they can handle it or not, and be ready for when they can't. A list of exercises, regardless of its complexity, cannot address the primary, daily requirement to understand and balance someone's perception against what is actually happening. I'm exhausted just describing it, and we haven't even started training yet.
There is a list of stimuli required to make a training program appropriate for a specific task. Many coaches are obsessed with this. They believe and convince others of the importance of this "formula," but this is not coaching; it's physiology. Recognizing the nuance between what needs to be done and what CAN be done, and applying it defines coaching. The connection between two people is paramount, and anything short of face-to-face interaction is a standard deviation from what is "best." Coaching is trusted criticism. It is responsive. Its success depends on saying the right thing at the right moment or "cueing." Saying the right thing too late is just as ineffective as saying the wrong thing. Saying too much is just as damaging as saying nothing. To be effective, cueing must happen coincident with the "feeling," not after. You cannot respond from a distance. You cannot develop a genuine bond from afar—you can start one—but it is a virtual representation of what we all know to be the most valuable aspect of coaching; building a relationship.
Merely being present while someone trains is not coaching either. I've had quite a few coaches in my lifetime. I've also attended many "exercise classes." I have been impressed at how good coaches can be; paying attention to minute details that are specific to individuals within massive group classes. I've also been dumbfounded by the lack of coaching that can occur one-on-one.
The Space Program is a remote list of exercises, a way for us to share ideas, training concepts, and build virtual relationships. It is a means to earn profit that supports other endeavors. It is useful, valuable even, but it is not coaching. It is not the same as being here. We can't get to know you, or dedicate our energy to ensuring you see something through to the end. We can all learn from it, develop better ideas and practices, but it isn't coaching. It is a list of exercises that you may or may not want or need to try. What it should do, is relay the importance of being present and invested in your goal.
In response, if you work remotely with clients or you have an online coach, you might list the benefits you've given or received through these remote relationships, but save it. We are not saying these relationships have no value, only that they aren't the real thing. We’re saying they are a facsimile of coaching. Mike Tyson would not have been the youngest heavyweight champion if Cus D'Amato Face-Timed him once a week to make sure he understood the combinations and rounds he had emailed him to do.
We know the difference when it matters. You should know too.
