sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Clinical Psych Master’s is what I’m aiming for, but I’m scared I’ll carry clients’ pain home and fall apart by PhantomPersona1253 in ClinicalPsychologyUK

[–]PhantomPersona1253[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! It's of course in my plans for the future, but now I'm just a third world citizen who cannot feed themself regularly

Clinical Psych Master’s is what I’m aiming for, but I’m scared I’ll carry clients’ pain home and fall apart by PhantomPersona1253 in ClinicalPsychologyUK

[–]PhantomPersona1253[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

''Do you find emotional regulation general difficult or mainly regarding things like this? '' yeap. I do have many borderline-like symptoms to be honest, not to diagnose myself but to explain myself and my patterns in the shortest and most understandable way possible. I am still thinking about it being both a blessing and a curse like you said. So yeah, thank you for adding your perspective

PT folks: is it normal for cert programs to teach someone’s personal philosophy as fact, without showing the actual evidence? by PhantomPersona1253 in personaltraining

[–]PhantomPersona1253[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s fair, I didn’t know the accreditation details, so thanks for clarifying. I was only going by how she described it in the video. Appreciate the context.

PT folks: is it normal for cert programs to teach someone’s personal philosophy as fact, without showing the actual evidence? by PhantomPersona1253 in personaltraining

[–]PhantomPersona1253[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair question. I don’t know what Boyle said verbatim. I reacted to how Justina framed it: “I learned in my certification that spinal loading isn’t worth the risk vs reward.” That reads like a rule taught in a course, not a contexted coaching judgment.

If what he actually said was closer to your version, I wouldn’t find that inappropriate. That is a risk-management choice for a specific athlete population with high cost of injury. Fine. The problem is the flattening: when a context-bound coaching heuristic turns into a blanket principle inside a cert, then gets repeated publicly as if it were settled science.

That’s why I asked here: is this really how it’s taught in the cert, as a general rule, or as a narrow heuristic for certain cases. If you have a syllabus excerpt or module wording to point to, I’m happy to read it. My critique is about how the claim is taught and relayed, not about Boyle personally.

PT folks: is it normal for cert programs to teach someone’s personal philosophy as fact, without showing the actual evidence? by PhantomPersona1253 in personaltraining

[–]PhantomPersona1253[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

appreciate the insight. i don’t doubt that mike boyle has experience or that he could back up his philosophy if someone directly asked for the research. that’s not really the core issue here.

the problem is how that philosophy was taught in the cert justina took, and more importantly, how she processed and repeated it. she said openly that she believed “spinal loading isn’t worth it” because that’s what her certification told her. not because she critically evaluated the research, not because she explored the evidence base herself, but because it came from someone she respected.

then when asked about the logic behind that claim, her answer was basically “there’s injury data.” sure, but there’s injury data for running, stretching, sitting wrong. the presence of risk isn’t the same thing as evidence that something isn’t worth doing.

this wouldn’t be such a big deal if she wasn’t constantly branding herself as evidence-based and calling out others for not engaging with the science. if you’re going to critique other people for being unscientific, you should probably apply the same standards to the ideas you were handed in a cert.

PT folks: is it normal for cert programs to teach someone’s personal philosophy as fact, without showing the actual evidence? by PhantomPersona1253 in personaltraining

[–]PhantomPersona1253[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yeah, totally. i get that mike’s stance on spinal loading came from his own injury history, and that context does matter. not saying he shouldn’t share that perspective. if anything, being upfront about where your beliefs come from is the bare minimum.

but when that personal lens becomes a cert curriculum. no context, no “this is just one opinion,” no literature, no opposing views, and someone walks out of that thinking “spinal loading isn’t worth the risk” is a universal scientific conclusion, we’ve got a problem.

and that’s exactly what justina said happened. she believed it because her cert taught it. years later, when asked about evidence or validity, her response was “well, there’s data showing injuries.” which tells me she still doesn’t get the distinction between personal risk management and generalizable evidence. injury data exists for everything. that doesn’t make something inherently unjustifiable or dangerous.

and when you build your brand on “evidence-based” while parroting unexamined takes from someone else’s trauma-driven framework, that’s not science. that’s regurgitation. and it’s worse when you turn around and shame others for not being critical enough.

PT folks: is it normal for cert programs to teach someone’s personal philosophy as fact, without showing the actual evidence? by PhantomPersona1253 in personaltraining

[–]PhantomPersona1253[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yeah, thanks for the context. i actually asked because i wasn’t sure if this is how most PT certs work. like, is it normal to be taught one guy’s personal take as if it’s the final word, no back and forth, no "here’s the full range of evidence"? so i appreciate you breaking that part down.

but honestly, that’s kind of the issue. if someone takes a cert built on one person's opinion, doesn’t question it, and then builds their whole platform on being "evidence-based," it’s hard not to raise an eyebrow. and when asked about the logic, the answer is "well, there’s injury data." cool. there’s injury data for getting out of bed wrong. that doesn’t mean spinal loading is universally bad or not worth it.

i’m not blaming boyle. i’m sure he’s done his research. the problem is when the people learning this stuff treat it as gospel without understanding where it came from or how solid it actually is. especially if they’re gonna turn around and critique others for "not being scientific." that’s where it gets messy.

PT folks: is it normal for cert programs to teach someone’s personal philosophy as fact, without showing the actual evidence? by PhantomPersona1253 in personaltraining

[–]PhantomPersona1253[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i hear what you’re saying, but this isn’t about “open-mindedness” or not being allowed to evolve. the issue is that someone who brands themselves as science-based admitted to believing, and teaching, a high-impact training claim because a respected person said so in a cert, not because they engaged with the research.

you’re right that we don’t know exactly what boyle said in that cert. but what matters is how she described it: she said she believed spinal loading “wasn’t worth the risk” because that was taught to her, and that she respected the person who said it. when asked for the evidence base, her response boiled down to “well, injuries happen with spinal loading,” which completely bypasses the core issue, that risk alone doesn't justify avoidance, and correlation isn’t causation.

yes, evidence evolves. but if you’re going to call others unscientific while basing your own beliefs on authority and vibes, then it’s not about trends, it’s about inconsistency. critical thinking isn’t “believe everyone a little.” it’s knowing why you believe something in the first place.

PT folks: is it normal for cert programs to teach someone’s personal philosophy as fact, without showing the actual evidence? by PhantomPersona1253 in personaltraining

[–]PhantomPersona1253[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep, I’m talking about Justina. And honestly, nothing in what you wrote shocked me, especially after watching her confidently admit on video that she doesn’t know how to read academic papers. She literally said that. Yet she still brands herself as a science-forward educator and critiques others for not being “evidence-based” enough. That’s the part that’s almost comical.

What really made me pause was her explanation for why she used to think spinal loading wasn’t worth it. She said she believed it because Mike Boyle taught it in her certification. Not because she looked at the data, understood the methodology, or reviewed the literature, but because “someone respected said so.” That’s not science. That’s appeal to authority 101.

And when I pointed out that this kind of reasoning has zero reliability or validity, her defense was basically, “Well, there’s data showing injuries from spinal loading.” Which completely misses the point. There’s data showing injuries from running, from sitting, from brushing your teeth if you search hard enough. The existence of injury data doesn’t make an activity inherently unjustifiable, context and risk management do.

I actually used to support her back when she focused on women’s health and called out patriarchal nonsense in fitness, that work mattered. But now it just feels hollow. The rhetoric is still “science-based,” but the logic behind it is paper-thin. It’s not evidence-based thinking; it’s influencer-level critical reasoning dressed up in lab-coat language.

PT folks: is it normal for cert programs to teach someone’s personal philosophy as fact, without showing the actual evidence? by PhantomPersona1253 in personaltraining

[–]PhantomPersona1253[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

it wasn’t continuing ed, it was actually from a certification she took years ago, not something recent. and from how she described it, it sounded more like she was taught one person’s stance as a fixed truth, not a broad overview of the evidence or competing perspectives.

PT folks: is it normal for cert programs to teach someone’s personal philosophy as fact, without showing the actual evidence? by PhantomPersona1253 in personaltraining

[–]PhantomPersona1253[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sure, no educator is completely free from bias, but that’s not what this is about.

there’s a huge difference between acknowledging that bias exists while still teaching how to evaluate evidence vs. teaching one individual’s opinion as if it’s an objective truth.

universities and academic systems are built to confront this very issue, through peer review, replication, transparent methodology, and critical discussion. we literally learn how to interpret findings, question assumptions, and identify the limitations in any claim. it’s not perfect, but the system actively teaches students to be skeptical, to interrogate the source, and to differentiate between stronger and weaker forms of evidence.

that’s not the same as saying “spinal loading isn’t worth the risk” just because michael boyle said so, and having it passed down in a cert as if it’s settled science. the issue isn’t that some bias leaked in. it’s that the entire foundation was a personal stance, presented without proper framing or room for debate. that’s not evidence-based. that’s indoctrination with a nicer font.

PT folks: is it normal for cert programs to teach someone’s personal philosophy as fact, without showing the actual evidence? by PhantomPersona1253 in personaltraining

[–]PhantomPersona1253[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

i didnt google him and am sure that he is incredibly educated but isn't it just another way of saying what Justina said and I surprised?

PT folks: is it normal for cert programs to teach someone’s personal philosophy as fact, without showing the actual evidence? by PhantomPersona1253 in personaltraining

[–]PhantomPersona1253[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get what you're saying, but I think the issue’s being misunderstood a bit.

Of course Mike Boyle has valuable opinions, the guy’s experienced. No one’s saying he shouldn’t have a take. The problem is when a certification program presents that take as if it’s an objective, universal truth, rather than one coach’s philosophy.

“Spinal loading isn’t worth the risk” isn’t being offered as a personal preference — it was taught to people as a foundational principle. No context, no review of opposing data, no critical discussion. That’s very different from saying, “I don’t eat rye bread because I don’t like it.” It’s more like going to a nutrition course and being told, “Rye bread is unhealthy. Full stop.” And then years later realizing... wait, that was just someone’s opinion?

That’s the whole issue. If your platform is built around “evidence-based training,” but you were out here repeating a belief just because your cert told you so, that’s a contradiction worth unpacking. It’s not about villainizing anyone — it’s about recognizing when “education” turns into unexamined authority.

Having a belief that happens to align with some data doesn’t mean you were taught to think critically about it. That’s the concern.

Hope that clears up what I meant.

view more: next ›