Home

Last night on Insight on SBS there was a debate about the competence of personal trainers and the fees that are charged.

The fitness industry like other industries such as the health supplements industry requires more in depth regulation and educational requirements other than completing an 8 week vocational learning course.

A fitness professional is given the responsibility to provide fitness services in a safe environment without causing harm or injury to their clients.

I spent time with a personal training studio that had degree qualified staff that was invaluable in furthering my basic knowledge. Unfortunately undertaking an 8 week course does not prepare you adequately to immediately start to give unsupervised instruction or have a sound understanding of the basic principles of human movement.

Health screening is conducted prior to any clients undertaking our bootcamps. If a prospective client has specific medical conditions or injuries they are referred to the appropriate practitioner. At no point do we give advice on any conditions or injuries.
With our sessions, our trainers are not standing around giving instruction only, we are constantly monitoring and correcting poor exercise technique.

The government needs to take a more active role in regulating the industry. Ultimately the fitness industry is about increasing physical activity. With obesity related deaths set to overtake smoking related deaths, the fitness industry needs to be acknowledged and supported by medical practitioners, insurance companies and the allied health services. This requires confidence in the fitness industry which starts with being more regulated and extending the curriculum to a diploma rather than an eight week certificate.

Like any industry, there are rogue operators that can skew the public’s perception away from the great work performed by the industry.

Great to see smoking is banned in cars where there are children. As there is an acknowledgment by the government about the dangers of smoking in confined spaces, this ban should be introduced/extended across any confined public space.

Yes it is fantastic that it will be illegal to smoke while a minor or person under 18 years old is in the car as it is assumed that a minor is powerless to stop an adult from smoking.

I find it strange how smoking is still allowed in cafe’s, restaurant’s and bars where there is a wall missing, ie the window and front wall has been removed with the wall being reinstated further back to create an pseudo open space.

Is it possible for 100% of the smoke in these pseudo courtyards to miraculously rise without disturbance to the ceiling and travel out towards the street and towards the heavens? NO I don’t think so. We have this situation in Australia where the smoking lobby puts undue pressure on the government and the addiction to sales tax revenue on cigarettes is too string, the public are subjected to this health threat.

There has been some movement with the Moreland Council proposing a 5 meter smoking ban from Childrens playground that highlights the dangers of secondhand smoke. More importantly that the council acknowledges that exhaled cigarette smoke does not necessarily travel towards the sky.

We need to follow the leadership taken by the Queensland government in introducing more appropriate anti smoking laws.

When it comes to health, smoking is one aspect that has a huge impact. Unlike other staes in Australia, Queensland has shown true leadership in introducing smoking bans that actually reduce the exposure of secondhand smoke to innocent bystanders.

Pretty simple stuff, outdoors means no roof or a ceiling or enclosed by a solid covering, surrounded by walls (as my example), high fences and timber palings.

Pretty logical stuff, while there are always loop holes in these definition, it catches most places in Victoria that are legally defined as outdoor but really are enclosed.

So what’s stopping Victoria from adopting these tougher smoking laws in public spaces?

With the origin of the foods country required for Food labelling, the World Health organisation will be ruling on whether the requirement that the “country of origin” is a breach of International trade agreements as alleged by Mexico & Canada.

The protests are based on the effect on sales based on all agricultural products being required to have there country of origin.

I think it it testiment to the fact that sales have been significantly reduced as experienced by Mexico in their Bovine industry that such laws must remain in place and not be undermined by the political process.

Given the proliferation of GM based food as well, those countries who use GM (genetical modified) based agriculture need to be clearly stated on the packaging, similarly countries that have a record of using chemicals in there products such as China with melamine in their baby food products.

Fortunately at the moment Food Standards Australia require the country of origin to be stated.

It’s a said day when politics starts to determine the level of transperancy in the food labelling laws.

Are Junk food companies developing brand loyalty towards children? With childhood obesity being a complex issue, is regulation required?
With the recent approval of McDonalds at the Royal Children Hospital, is creating brand awareness from an early age a good thing.

I like to compare it to tobacco adverting in motor sport, if it had no effect on peoples decision top either change their cigarette brands or influence their decision to commence smoking why would they spend hundreds of millions of dollars placing there logo’s on the cars?

Well guess what, they ban any form of advertising in Australia yet junk food is ok to be promoted unregulated.

Today everyone from breakfast cereal companies such as Nutri-Grain which is a third sugar to McDonalds sponsoring Little athletics.
Coco Krispies made similar nutritional claims in the US.
The next strategy are branded toys and even McDonalds now has a toy whereby the children can make hamburgers in a Barbie doll style plastic kitchen.

Now we are seeing websites created by the big multi nationals with web based games show casing planety of company logo’s and product images.

So why do junk food companies do it?
*Brand awareness
*Creates associations with a particular event or activity
*Creates a relationships with the parents
*Influencing children at an age where they lack the ability to make healthy food and beverage decisions.

Ultimately you can argue that the parents have the final say or control the money to purchase these products but the same can be said for cigarette advertising.
Ultimately it makes it harder for responsible parents to take control of there children’s health.

The latest Government Preventative Health Taskforce document targeting obesity and Diabetes make recommendations to phase out junk food advertising before pm and banning junk food toy competition promotions.
The only issue is the voluntary nature of this report, once again leaving it to the socially responsible corporations to follow the guidelines.
Unfortunately self regulation hasn’t worked as was experienced by Coke last year.

So will the junk food companies adopt a more responsible approach when developing their brand loyalty towards children