In an increasingly saturated coaching market, differentiation is currency. Some differentiate through clarity of communication. Others through results. And some through absolutism.

When a coach frames their system as irrefutable, unquestionably superior, or the only method that works, it should prompt scrutiny, not admiration.

This is not because premium coaching is inherently problematic. It isn’t. High-level individualised coaching justifiably commands high fees.

The issue arises when certainty rather than process becomes the product.

1. Biological Systems Do Not Respond Uniformly

Human adaptation to training is highly variable.

Inter-individual differences in response to identical resistance training programs are well documented (Hubal et al., 2005; Ahtiainen et al., 2016). Even when volume, intensity, and frequency are standardised, strength and hypertrophy responses vary substantially across individuals.

Factors influencing response include:

Genetic predisposition
Baseline training status
Muscle fibre composition
Endocrine environment
Sleep and recovery quality
Nutritional intake
Psychological stress
Injury history

This variability alone dismantles the idea of a universally superior method.

There are principles that consistently drive adaptation — progressive overload, sufficient volume, appropriate intensity, and specificity (ACSM, 2009; Schoenfeld, 2010). However, the application of these principles must be individualised.

A rigid system that does not adapt to response contradicts the foundational principle of training: specificity and progression relative to the individual.

2. The Problem With “Irrefutable” Claims

In science, nothing is irrefutable.

All models are provisional. All methods are contingent upon context. All conclusions remain open to revision under new evidence.

Karl Popper’s principle of falsifiability defines scientific legitimacy: a claim must be testable and capable of being proven wrong. A coaching system marketed as universally effective for all individuals is, by definition, unfalsifiable — because any failure can be attributed to the client rather than the method.

This shifts accountability away from the system.

Effective coaching does the opposite. It assumes responsibility for:

Establishing baseline metrics
Monitoring objective progress
Adjusting programming when outcomes deviate from expectations

3. Certainty as a Marketing Device

Certainty sells.

Humans are naturally drawn to confidence signals, particularly in high-performance or identity-driven domains. Research in behavioural psychology suggests perceived authority and decisiveness increase compliance and trust (Cialdini, 2009).

However, confidence and correctness are not synonymous. A coach can be persuasive without being precise.

When certainty is bundled with exclusivity, scarcity, and long-term financial commitment, the psychological weight of the decision increases. The narrative often shifts from “this is a structured application of training principles” to “this is a proprietary system that guarantees transformation.”

That shift deserves interrogation.

4. Price Is Not the Ethical Variable – Narrative Is

High-ticket coaching is not inherently unethical.

Intensive individualisation, frequent communication, data analysis, and long-term programming justify premium pricing in many contexts.

The ethical tension arises when cost is anchored to perceived uniqueness rather than demonstrable process.

If a system is marketed as:

Special
Hidden
Superior beyond doubt
Categorically better than alternatives

Then the burden of proof increases. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In applied physiology, superiority is demonstrated through outcomes measured over time, not through rhetoric.

5. What Competent Coaching Actually Looks Like

Evidence-based coaching is not defined by a single template.

It is defined by process:

Assessment
- Baseline strength, movement competency, workload tolerance
Hypothesis
- A reasoned rationale for exercise selection, loading parameters, and progression model
Monitoring
- Objective tracking (load, volume, performance metrics, symptom response)
Adaptation
- Iterative adjustments based on observed response
Re-evaluation
- Continuous recalibration of goals and methods

This model reflects the broader scientific method: propose, test, measure, refine.

It does not rely on infallibility.

6. Questions Clients Should Ask Before Committing

Before entering a long-term coaching agreement — particularly at significant financial cost — clients should feel comfortable asking:

How will my progress be objectively measured?
What evidence informs your methodology?
How do you adapt programming if expected outcomes are not achieved?
Can you explain why this approach is optimal for me, not just in general?
What assumptions underpin this system?

A competent coach will welcome these questions. A dogmatic coach may resist them.

7. Final Perspective

There are effective methods. There are ineffective methods. There are methods that work brilliantly for some and poorly for others.

But there is no infallible system.

Training adaptation is probabilistic, not deterministic.

When evaluating coaching, prioritise transparency, accountability, and adaptability over absolutism.

Certainty is persuasive.

Process is powerful.

Choose process.

Suggested References

American College of Sports Medicine (2009). Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.
Ahtiainen, J. P., et al. (2016). Heterogeneity in resistance training-induced muscle strength and mass responses. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports.
Hubal, M. J., et al. (2005). Variability in muscle size and strength gain after unilateral resistance training. Journal of Applied Physiology.
Schoenfeld, B. J. (2010). The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
Cialdini, R. (2009). Influence: Science and Practice.