Restrictive covenants when someone leaves an employer (limiting the business activities of the former employee) are often unenforceable anyway. Even when they are, the contract must state the length of time during which the restrictions apply; that normally can't be longer than 12 months.
I would expect the same to apply in respect of training techniques. i.e. if no period of time is specified (or if that period exceeds 12 months) then a court wouldn't uphold the validity of that part of the contract.
From the wording you quote, I assume that the courses are provided by an international company and what should have been written where the private address has been entered is simply "the United Kingdom". (That suggests that the franchise-holder who ran the course hasn't actually got a clue about contract law and simply entered his own address in the blank space). In effect, the contract seems to be saying "Here's how we would like to restrict your future activities but, reluctantly, we have to accept that your own country's laws must actually apply".
In the UK you can't patent or copyright teaching techniques. Any contract which seeks to get around that basic principle would be unlikely to be recognised as valid by the courts.