AI Can Write Workouts. What Makes a Great Coach?

Oct 20

A great fitness coach helps clients move forward through a plan they understand, trust, and follow. Your program design matters, but clients may place more value on follow-through and the relationship that helps them stay consistent.

During an OPEX quarterly office hour, Carl Hardwick and fellow coaches explored that gap between what coaches enjoy producing and what clients value. The conversation began with a thought experiment about AI writing better workouts.

Apply for the OPEX Method here.

How much of your value comes from program design?

At a coaching weekend in the Dominican Republic, Hardwick asked roughly 22 coaches what percentage of their value came from programming. About half placed considerable weight on it, with some answering 75%.

Then he asked them to consider a hypothetical: If machines could write individualized programs 10 times better within six months, where would their value go?

He wasn't making a forecast. He wanted coaches to examine what else they offered.

The client's answer may be different

Hardwick suspected their clients would give programming a much smaller share. Someone seeking a transformation may trust the coach to choose the route without caring whether the design took 10 minutes or 35.

Mitch, another coach on the call, estimated programming at 10% to 15% of his value. When a longtime client suggested programming for themselves, he welcomed the chance to build it together.

For him, that conversation showed growing autonomy rather than a threat to his role.

Program design needs a foundation, not endless refinement

Hardwick noted that roughly 15 coaches at the Dominican Republic event were relatively new. They hadn't necessarily experienced the shift that comes after spending years studying programming.

He saw value in that study. Going far into a subject can reveal which principles matter and build confidence in simpler decisions. Another coach recalled reaching that realization about OPEX's basic lifestyle guidelines after considering further study in functional nutrition.

Still, Hardwick distinguished the coach's curiosity from the client's needs. Learning more can satisfy a personal interest without improving the service.

Simple principles still require understanding

In the OPEX Method Coach Development Program, Hardwick said live programming instruction concentrates on about 40% to 60% of the digital material. The focus is on principles coaches need across their client base.

Squatting, pushing, pulling, and hinging were his examples of straightforward training ideas. Most clients seeking better habits and general fitness don't require endless technical refinement.

A weightlifter pursuing an Olympic medal presents a different problem. That goal can justify much more specialized study.

The work around the workout keeps people engaged

Brett described a valuable middle ground he called "program design adjacent": understanding what clients enjoy, keeping them engaged, and finding the next event to put on their calendar.

Those decisions shape a person's long-term relationship with fitness, even when they aren't about sets and reps.

Other coaches emphasized oversight, check-ins, and accountability. Will said clients came for conversation and connection, including his humor and willingness to challenge their beliefs. They already knew how to perform many of the exercises.

A participant's salon analogy captured the point: even an excellent stylist can lose clients if nobody wants to sit with them for two hours.

Belief helps turn a plan into action

Hardwick connected this discussion to OPEX's beliefs-to-actions framework. Clients who believe a program fits them are more likely to execute it consistently.

The coach provides context for the workout, helping the client understand why it makes sense.

A carefully written program can matter less than the client's belief in it, because that belief affects whether they follow through.

Physical expression connects training with daily life

Hardwick described great coaching as helping someone define their ideal self and work toward it. That picture includes physical activity, daily routines, and relationships.

Exercise remains central. He called physical expression an "ultimate assessor": starting a workout can reveal the effects of poor sleep, food choices, stress, or unresolved concerns.

That distinction mattered to his argument. Putting considerable value on movement doesn't require putting all coaching value into writing programs.

Fitness priorities also change. Programming may dominate someone's attention during one phase, then become less important as other parts of life take precedence. Hardwick referenced James's comparison of fitness to brushing teeth: eventually, movement can become something people do without constant planning.

Coaches have different reasons to use or avoid AI

Hardwick described two extremes: coaches who reject AI entirely and coaches who want maximum automation regardless of quality. Most, he suggested, sit somewhere between them.

His own preference was closer to avoiding automation because he enjoys coaching and the creative work of programming. However, he acknowledged that managing 70 or 75 clients could change his choices.

He compared it with driving. He enjoyed keeping his hands on the wheel but found automation useful during a long highway trip.

The group also distinguished information processing from creative work. Nick welcomed fast summaries and answers while disliking AI-generated music, videos, and graphics. Programming could feel similarly personal to coaches who regard it as their art.

Human relationships remained an open question. Will believed his connection with clients couldn't be replaced. Hardwick shared that preference but wouldn't claim certainty about what future technology might do.

CoachRx: context and analysis before automation

Hardwick described features under development in CoachRx coaching software that would give AI more context. Coaches would decide how to use that information rather than follow one required automation model.

Three layers of memory

The system he described included organization-level memory for shared coaching expectations, coach-level memory for individual writing and response styles, and client-level memory for each relationship.

During alpha testing, it recognized that Hardwick used informal language such as "bro" with Justin. That context could also inform workout notes and responses to comments.

This addressed Nick's point that the same workout may need different language for different people. Hardwick argued that AI could personalize that language when it had enough context.

Finding the clients who need attention

Hardwick saw data analysis as a useful entry point.

His example was a recurring Monday task at 6 a.m.: review client information, assess positive or negative sentiment, and identify five clients needing attention by 8 a.m., with reasons.

The coach would still choose the response. The system would surface details that could otherwise get missed.

He also expressed concern about negative public attitudes toward AI. He favored discussing context and service improvements rather than promising to automate every conversation.

Why interchangeable programs compete on price

Hardwick used a value ladder to explain the difference between delivering information and helping someone change.

LevelFitness exampleCommodityFreely available informationGoodInformation organized into a programServiceA coached sessionExperienceThe setting and delivery of that sessionTransformationA change in the person, including how they think

His concern was that easily generated programs increasingly look interchangeable. When buyers see little difference, price becomes a larger factor.

Erica pointed out that free programs had existed online for years. Hardwick agreed, but argued that AI makes clients feel even more able to obtain individualized programming themselves.

The program's technical perfection wasn't his central concern. Clients still needed reasons to believe in it and keep showing up.

A coach's value changes with the client

Jeff asked whether competitive clients naturally place more value on programming than people seeking general fitness and accountability. Hardwick agreed.

Someone targeting a 200-kilogram lift on a particular day may organize everything around that performance. Another client may need more support with habits.

Hardwick didn't offer a universal percentage. He described having a foundational view of coaching value, then adapting to each person.

Great coaching is measured by progress

AI's role will differ across coaching practices. Some coaches will use it to review information; others will preserve programming as work they enjoy.

The strongest measure remains the client's progress. A useful plan, a timely conversation, and an experience someone wants to repeat all contribute to that progress. The workout earns its place through what it helps the person do.

Your next step