There is a major debate going on today within the fitness industry as to which accrediting body should be the "one and only". ACE believes it's NCCA, while others like ISSA believe in NBFE (partly because the two companies were established by the same individual). Nonetheless, we have carefully considered each of these two accrediting  bodies, amongst others, and have found inconsistencies in terms of the program requirements accepted by each. We have evaluated the different certification companies within each accrediting body's list of "approved programs" and have been confused with the wide range of criteria, exam structures, formats, curriculum and program development. There really didn't seem to be an educational standard. If there was one, it was not shared by all that were listed as approved programs. The most popular accrediting body is NCCA. By their own admission, "Certification organizations that submit their programs for accreditation are evaluated based on the process and products, not the content.", even they seem to lack what most agree should be their primary concern. Unfortunately, a major part of the "process" is the requirement of a "registration fee", which can total thousands of dollars. Although their accreditation seals can be seen "proudly" displayed on most personal trainer certification company websites, there is no clear definition as to what this really means. The premise from which they were obtained is questionable at best.  The second most popular accrediting body is NBFE. They are the latest addition to the "accreditation industry". Unfortunately, they are no longer providing accreditations. They have temporarily shut their program down. According to their website, they are "conducting a major review and revision...the newly revised test form will be available in the first quarter of 2008". As of the third quarter of 2008, their accreditation remained unavailable. In the end, it was the "registration fee" and the lack of educational evaluation that convinced us the personal trainer accreditation system is broken. The acceptance of any type of annual "registration fee" casts a shadow of uncertainty as to the true reason certification programs are granted approval. The existence of any sort of relationship creates natural bias. It is somewhat like having a fitness contest judged by only one person, who happens to be married to one of the contestants. Guess whom he is going to pick?  However honorable the intentions of these particular companies are, we find it difficult to believe they could remain unbiased to a certification company that has just forked over thousands of dollars in fees. Most certification companies would be upset to learn of their accreditation denial after their check has been cashed. They would most likely pursue legal action or at least request a refund of their money. It doesn't seem likely that an accreditation company could allow this to happen, particularly when the registration fees are their sole source of revenue.  Accrediting bodies should provide unbiased, articulated and useful information to the public they claim to serve. Minimally, there should be an effort to get whatever helpful information they possess out to the public; for what purpose does it serve if no one knows about it? The validation of their value is left to the client. NBFE advises, "simply ask your trainer if they passed the national boards!". This type of information gathering is unrealistic. Most clients are not made aware of the fact that NBFE (or NCCA for that matter) even exist. Most personal training clients will not ask their trainer to prove he/she is even certified. Do any of us ask our car mechanic if he is ASE Certified? It is assumed the professional is qualified if he/she is employed. Keep in mind, accreditation means “officially recognized”. It is our belief that these companies, which have assumed a role in accrediting personal trainer certification programs, are using that term very loosely.