C.H.E.K. Practitioners?

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
tpa wrote:
Mel Siff has proven him wrong on many occasions. Siff has even shown how Chek’s training advice is unsafe (e.g. sucking in your stomach while squatting).

I hurt my back as a newbie by following Chek’s advice, so Siff saved a lot of people a lot of injuries.

Look at the people who are into Check: typical converts. If you want to hang with that crowd, then go for it.
[/quote]

Alright, so it must be a blue moon, or some random act of astrology, but I’m going to agree with CalLaw.
I’ve take some of Chek’s courses and I too hurt my back following some of his advice.

I wanted to believe the C.H.E.K. principles, but I just can’t be a convert. I truly believe that he thinks he knows what he is talking about, but I just can’t buy into into it.

22

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Jason, from what I’ve seen of people that are attracted to Chek, they have a lot of problems, both physical and psychological.

They are looking for a solution, and he provides what they percieve to be one. This helps them to feel a bit more at ease, and in some cases, superior.

The thing is- A lot of people here are not into wellness. They are allready well. They are looking to take their minds and bodies to a higher level of performance.

Congrats on finding something that works for you, but for others, it simply holds no value. Even with a mimimal amount of training, nutrition, and psychological knowledge, it is easy to see that some of Cheks teachings are not only invalid, but in some cases- dangerous.

[/quote]

I agree, CHEK is about wellness more so than athletic training and for my particular case it’s exactly what I need.

Comparing Chek’s principles to those of the other esteemed authors on T-Nation, is kind of like comparing apples and oranges. Chek’s strengths are his abilities to use whatever modalities that are available to help cure injuries and chronic diseases.

For example, one the instructors of the CHEK institute Emma Lane had cancer twice, brain and spinal trauma from a car accident and chronic fatigue syndrome for three years. She was able to completely heal herself through the guidance of the CHEK institute as well as other experts that she was referred out.

She now travels the world teaching what she has learned to others. She was the instructor for my entry level course and came across as a caring, compassionate person who even took the time during breaks to give me advice regarding my own situation. Was she totally ripped and jacked? No, but she was healthy and again that’s not what the CHEK stuff is truly about.

Still I love posting on T-Nation because we are all free to pretty much say what we feel and I am a big defender of free speech. I learn a lot regarding training and nutrition here not only from the authors but from other posters as well.

I consider myself a free thinker, who questions and evaluates everything I read, watch or hear and I will never blindly follow anyone no matter how right they claim to be. For now, on a personal level, the CHEK teachings are exactly the ticket I need, but I am aware that as I evolve and learn that may change in the future.

But I will continue to live by my motto:

“Always seek the truth… and run from those that have claimed to have found it.”

23

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Jason, from what I’ve seen of people that are attracted to Chek, they have a lot of problems, both physical and psychological.

They are looking for a solution, and he provides what they percieve to be one. This helps them to feel a bit more at ease, and in some cases, superior.

The thing is- A lot of people here are not into wellness. They are allready well. They are looking to take their minds and bodies to a higher level of performance.

Congrats on finding something that works for you, but for others, it simply holds no value. Even with a mimimal amount of training, nutrition, and psychological knowledge, it is easy to see that some of Cheks teachings are not only invalid, but in some cases- dangerous.

[/quote]

Good post.

24

[quote]CLewis wrote:
Imho, I think it is important to have a base of knowledge before going into a specific ideology.

I would recommend getting NSCA CSCS before you venture outward. A study done by UCLA found that, of all certifications studied, NSCA and ACSM certified practitioners had the highest level of knowledge (these also are two of the only six third-party accredited organizations).

They found no evidence of increased knowledge with experience - meaning the starting point of your knowledge reflects how much you’ll know afterward.

Also keep in mind that organizations such as these are forced to evolve with new research and developments, but a specific philosophy (such as CHEK’s) has the POTENTIAL to stay stagnant when new research contradicts the assertions of the originator.

I thought about getting CHEK once - to be honest, after talking to a lot of people, I realized that people would be more likely to call me into question were I to let it be known I had a CHEK cert. On the other hand, people who are CHEK certified tend to respect other CHEK certified people very highly.[/quote]

Define knowledge. You realise that this is basically UCLA’s opinion of what is considered important to know.

Jason, you’re really going off the deep end here. Now you’re claiming that Chek’s principals cure cancer? (don’t even try to bullshit about you weren’t implying anything, if you weren’t implying anything then there was no reason to bring up that example)

25

[quote]cap’nsalty wrote:
CLewis wrote:
Imho, I think it is important to have a base of knowledge before going into a specific ideology.

I would recommend getting NSCA CSCS before you venture outward. A study done by UCLA found that, of all certifications studied, NSCA and ACSM certified practitioners had the highest level of knowledge (these also are two of the only six third-party accredited organizations).

They found no evidence of increased knowledge with experience - meaning the starting point of your knowledge reflects how much you’ll know afterward.

Also keep in mind that organizations such as these are forced to evolve with new research and developments, but a specific philosophy (such as CHEK’s) has the POTENTIAL to stay stagnant when new research contradicts the assertions of the originator.

I thought about getting CHEK once - to be honest, after talking to a lot of people, I realized that people would be more likely to call me into question were I to let it be known I had a CHEK cert. On the other hand, people who are CHEK certified tend to respect other CHEK certified people very highly.

Define knowledge. You realise that this is basically UCLA’s opinion of what is considered important to know.

Jason, you’re really going off the deep end here. Now you’re claiming that Chek’s principals cure cancer? (don’t even try to bullshit about you weren’t implying anything, if you weren’t implying anything then there was no reason to bring up that example)[/quote]

I guess you missed the part where I stated she worked with Chek and others?