Social media and the S&C industry: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

In the last decade, social media has transformed how people access and share information across all industries, and the strength and conditioning field is no exception. With platforms like Instagram, YouTube, Twitter and TikTok, information is more accessible than ever, and coaches, athletes, and fitness enthusiasts are never more than a click or a swipe away from gaining access to the minds of elite-level coaches and their training philosophies, the latest in evidence-based research, and expertly written programming templates, all of which are packaged and distilled into digestible, user friendly portions of content.

Inevitably however, and as is true for most things, more is not always better, and in this instance, more information does not equate to more high-quality information. And the Yang of informative, genuine, high-quality information is balanced out by the Yin of low quality, misinformed, and at its worst, intentionally misleading information, that also features within our feeds.

This article discusses the good, the bad, and the ugly components of social media in the strength and conditioning industry and explores how to navigate the flood of information with a discerning eye, for practitioners and athletes alike.

The Good: A wealth of information, access and worldwide connection

Undoubtedly, one of the best things to come from social media in the strength and conditioning industry is the access to huge amounts of information and the ability to connect with people from all over the world to discuss, share and develop new ideas.

Athletes, from novices to elite performers, can benefit from the vast array of drills, workouts, and recovery strategies available online. Prior to social media, unless you were part of a professional programme or had the financial means to support your own training (or you were willing, and able, to decipher large volumes of technical material for yourself), access to high level coaching and training advice was difficult to come by. With the advent of social media, athletes can now access and learn from industry leading professionals, gaining insights into specialised training methods, recovery modalities and elite level programming developed for their sport.

For strength and conditioning professionals, social media can serve as a fantastic platform to be creative, share ideas and continuously learn and develop. Additionally, online communities can help promote collaboration and create networking opportunities, something which is invaluable within a field where mentorship and shared experience are important for the growth and long-term progression of the industry.

The Bad: Too much information, too little quality control

While the accessibility (and digestibly) of information is undoubtedly a huge benefit to both athletes and coaches, it can also be a curse. The volume of content available can be overwhelming, especially when there is no formal governance or review process for what gets posted and shared online. Unfortunately, this can lead to inconsistent messaging from unqualified sources, diluted content and competition for attention.

Inconsistent Expertise: The rise of the ‘The Armchair Quarterback’

One of the most significant challenges in social media within the S&C space, for coaches and athletes, is the inconsistency in the quality of the information being shared. For better or worse, credibility, traction and exposure on social media is often granted based on who has the largest following, and who understands how to service the algorithm the best. Which, unfortunately, is not evidence of, or a substitute for, formal education and professional expertise. This can be dangerous, as this can lead to the spread of misinformation from unqualified sources, increasing the credibility of armchair quarterbacks (1) within the space. The armchair quarterback, or armchair quarterback syndrome, as described by Adam Grant in ‘Think Again’, is a type of cognitive bias where a person’s confidence (relative to the context), outweighs their level of competence. This bias ranges between blind arrogance on the one end (not knowing enough to know what you don’t know), and confident humility sitting at the other (knowing enough to know you don’t know everything). And whilst there are many variations of armchair quarterbacks and ‘expert’ influencers that exist, the key takeaway is that the relationship between someone’s perceived level of skill vs their actual level of skill (1), can be easily disguised on social media, and discerning which is which can be extremely difficult.

It should be noted here that this does not mean to suggest that highly educated and highly experienced practitioners can’t have large followings, or, that accounts with large followings don’t create and share high quality information. Similarly, that highly educated, and highly experienced practitioners are not immune from sharing poor information and have no biases of their own, or, that there is anything wrong with a less experienced coach being creative and sharing content to learn and grow within the space. All that is being presented here is that social media, and the associated mechanisms, create an environment where credibility and recognition are not simply awarded based on quality, and it is important as consumers, we remember this when we’re choosing which content to consume and take advice from.

Overwhelming Volume: The 80/20 rule of online S&C content

With so many voices in the field and the vast amount of content available, from professionals to hobbyists to our trusty armchair quarterbacks, it can be hard to figure out who to listen to and what advice to follow. Additionally, often what features on social media tends to represent a small minority of what would typically make up a training programme (Figure 1). Meaning, what we tend to see is the ‘sexy’ and ‘shiny’ training that is eye catching and grabs attention (or drives engagement, likes and shares in our case), such as the cool plyometric drills, 1RM attempts, the use of force plates and other high-tech software, and the nuanced mobility drills and accessory work. This provides a false portrayal of what a real training programme actually entails, or the other 80% if we’re considering our 80/20 ideology (Figure 1), such as our foundational lifts, progressive overload, consistency and adherence to a structured plan. This overload of information can lead to decision fatigue, causing athlete’s (and coaches), to hop from one programme, exercise and drill to the next, searching for the next ‘BEST’ thing (‘shiny object syndrome’), abandoning any notion of structure and continuity.

Figure 1.

The 80/20 of programme design

This can be dangerous for both athletes and coaches, in each of their respective contexts. For athletes, it can promote an image of training that values novelty over consistency, leaving little room (and time) to train a movement or exercise long enough to elicit any real adaptation (it is believed we need at least ~8-12 weeks of exposure to an exercise to move out from the skill acquisition phase of learning, to be able to overload the movement sufficiently to create any lasting adaptation – 2). For coaches, (and from a coach consumer perspective – a coach consuming content on social media), this can create a constant sense of anxiety and pressure around individual training methods, ideologies and programme decision making, which can lead to unnecessary and impromptu changes to ‘keep up’ with what is in vogue at the time. Additionally, from a coach creator perspective (a coach creating content to share), the viral and competitive nature of social media may encourage otherwise highly principled coaches to begin playing the algorithmic game and to push more viral style content, in an attempt to drive engagement on their own platform and stay relevant online, neither of which is beneficial for the creator, or the consumer. Note, this does not mean that from the coach consumer perspective, exposure to content cannot have the opposite effect and can benefit coaches by challenging them to think critically about their methods. Seeking out high-quality information that elicits self-reflection is constructive and should be welcomed and encouraged, however, constantly being reminded of what else is available and what other ‘coaches’ think is best can be debilitating, creating a paralysis by analysis situation that could negatively impact practice, rather than enhance it.

The Ugly: Disingenuous tactics and the influence of commercial interests

As previously mentioned, even the most knowledgeable and well intentioned among us are not immune from creating and sharing poor and misguided information, or from falling victim to the algorithm wants. What gets quantified as ‘ugly’ in this instance is when poor (and out of context) information is intentionally shared to prioritise engagement over accuracy. This is often coupled with a specific agenda to promote personal gain and/or incentives, such as to increase monetization of social platforms, attract sponsorships, and promote affiliation with products or services. Often these schemes may be relatively harmless (you might buy an out of context programme that didn’t deliver the results it promised), and other times it may be more sinister and border on professional negligence (advocating harmful training practices or strict dietary protocols). Unfortunately, these trends prioritise (and award) social engagement over the well-being of the end user, and in a system without regulation or repercussion for disingenuous behaviour, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe what you are reading, and to trust who is writing it.

Summary: Developing a critical eye

Social media in the strength and conditioning space can be a double-edged sword, that can both serve us and hinder us. Unfortunately, the wealth of information causes competition, and in a market where engagement is awarded over accuracy, and engagement drives creation, the quality of information we see can range from exceptional, to obsolete. However, I strongly believe social media can (and does) have a net positive impact on the industry, so long as we become critical consumers of the content we are accessing. Below are some recommendations to hopefully help towards doing just that:

1)    Check credentials:

Whilst formal education isn’t the be all and end all, it does represent a foundational standard of knowledge and level of expertise, therefore consumers should check the credentials of the content creators they follow. Aim to avoid (or be skeptical of) content that lacks a professional foundation or is delivered based solely on personal anecdotes.

2)    Evidence-based practice:

When evaluating training programmes or advice, users should seek content grounded in evidence-based practices. Reputable creators will share case studies or provide links to the studies they are referencing. Be wary of trends, programmes or routines that promise quick fixes, extreme results and/or push products or promotional codes. If it seems too good to be true, then it probably is.

3)    Diversify Your Sources:

Social media can be polarising (and often awards polarising views and content). To avoid being trapped in an echo chamber, aim to consume content from a variety of reputable sources.

4)    Social media is a business:

Remember, good or bad, qualified or unqualified, many creators posting content on social media are benefitting (or intending to benefit), from doing so. It sounds cutting to say, but there is an agenda to each post and each interaction. Whether that is as innocent as to get you to subscribe to an email list, or to promote a new book, article, training course, or new piece of tech, social media is the top of the sales funnel…so be wary of what (and who) you choose to buy from.

References:

1.     Grant, A. (2022). Think Again. Penguin Random House.

2.     Flanagan, E, P. (2022). Strength Training. In D, Joyce., & D, Lewindon. (Eds.). High Performance Training for Sports. (2nd ed., pp. 133-149). Human Kinetics.