Wednesday, April 2, 2014

New Zealand’s Personal Trainers are harming their clients

Here are some staggering statistics relating to gym injuries in New Zealand …. 

One in eight Kiwis belong to a gym (up from one in 11 in 1995)  

Over the same period the number of personal trainers has increased tenfold, from 200 to 2000.  

ACC (accident Compensation Commission) figures show that in just the past five years gym accidents have increased by 330 per cent.

So there’s been a 28 per cent increase in numbers going to a gym and a tenfold increase in punters employing personal trainers has seen a tenfold increase in accident expenditure!  

23,000 claims in 2013 alone, up 10,000 on 2012.  

If this trend continues soon going to a gym will be in the same category as playing a physical contact sport like soccer in terms of injury risk.   

This can’t be explained away as an anomaly.

More Personal Trainers = More Injuries in New Zealand Gyms is what the figures state.

So why do we have this worrisome trend and why aren’t gyms more honest over the perceived benefits versus dangers of using a PT? 

Is it just me or I am right and saying that most personal trainers are aged under 30 years and most of their clients aged well over 30 years?  

It would be ridiculous for say Bayern Munich to employ a coach who was a decade plus younger than the players he’s coaching.  

Most of N.Z’s PT’s are coaching the equivalent of their parents.  

To use the soccer analogy again, imagine the injuries that would be produced if you had a 20 year running the training sessions for a golden-oldies team?   

Gyms, fitness industry should look to quality and not quantity. 

Look to experience like other recreational activities.  

Pay their employees enough so a 40 year old with kids and a mortgage can make a comfortable living, not tweens on low wages, with no responsibility apart from paying back the loan on their car.  

Therein lies the problem. 

An industry in denial and until the gyms/industry trainers admit there is an issue it means gym goers will continue to be injured in numbers that are comparable even to contact sports.  
Ceasing the myth personal trainers correlate to fewer injuries is a start.

Since the Morning after Pill doesn’t work for fat chicks, why fuck em’ in the first place?

The most astounding revelation to the news that the widely-used morning-after pills is less effective in preventing pregnancy in woman over 70kgs,  is the salient point Kiwi men are actually having sex with them in the first place. 

Are Kiwi men in New Zealand just not fussy?  

That desperate for sex, or that drunk not to care who they are banging?    

Do they want a brat with a fat 'nameless' bimbo they picked-up at the pub?  

Clearly today's N.Z women care less about their weight than their mothers with the average weight going up 12 kilos in one generation.   

62kgs in sixties New Zealand and now 74 kilos in 2014.   

Use of the morning after pill generally indicates casual sex and the prevention of an unwanted pregnancy.  

The simple solution to the ‘morning after pill’ being rendered a third effective by the women’s weight is for men to not fuck them.   
Do society a favour - go home and have wank instead.  

The same applies to women contemplating having sex with fat guys. 


Let fat people sit on the margins (naturally after strengthening them) of society.  

Then let Darwinsm work its magic. 

In one or two generations – no more fat people!    

Footnote: Congratulations to radio presenter Rachel Smalley calling New Zealand women "heifers" and "a bunch of lardos”. She is dead right and needs industry accolades rather than complaints which will doubtless come from the very same ‘heifers’ she describes. The fatties with time to write letters, consume a packet of biscuits but not to exercise.  


Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Bodybuilders are killing themselves to look good in a mirror + Is your Personal Trainer Killing you?

It’s been widely known for decades, if not centuries Inuit Indians don’t tend to live long lives due to their restrictive food sources, the same with the Massai on the African plains. Too much meat is bad for one’s health, produces higher rates of cancers as well.

Little surprise therefore in the results of adopting a high protein diet from studies undertaken by University of Sydney's Charles Perkins Centre and University of Southern California.  

People on high-protein diets are likely to lose years of life along with the weight they shed, according to these two recent studies. 

The results of adopting a high-protein bodybuilding diet should send shivers down the spines of the personal training fraternity, gym bunnies.    

Those who consume just 20 per cent of their calories from protein were four times more likely to die of cancer or diabetes than other people. 

The risk of cancer adopting a high protein diet is as much as smoking 20 cigarettes a day!  

Surprise, surprise a balanced diet is a key to a long life. 

The bodybuilding, gym industry is massive and pervasive proponents of consuming excess protein – all because there’s a buck in it.  

They point to the market muscles as a positive sign of a person being healthy gulping down protein shakes when the ripped magazine model is just as liable to develop cancer as a result of their unbalanced diet as a person smoking a packet a day.     

Shamefully they are not telling consumers the detrimental effects of undertaking a bodybuilders diet e.g. increased risk of diabetes.      

Personal Trainers concept 'looking better, weighing less' with high protein diets is the key to good health has been shown not only to be a profit driven sham but dangerous advice.

Any gym that cared about their clients should strip the shelves of protein powders and encourage customers to eat more fruit and vegetables.   

Mums, middle-aged office workers etc wanting an extra push in an attempt to lose weight should avoid personal trainers who have bulked-up on protein, since clearly they have no interest in their own health, so why should they care about yours?  

Na├»ve eve fools that uses a personal trainer that is involved in bodybuilding events in the deluded belief they are fit when they are just the opposite may as well employ one that smokes for what it’s worth.  
Besides most bodybuilders are gay men and I wouldn't want one getting too close to me if I could avoid it.    

So gyms that employ bodybuilders as personal trainers, push sales of protein should be shunned since medical research says  they haven't a fucking clue what they are doing when it comes to people’s health.  
For someone to undertake a hard-core bodybuilding diet with the full knowledge they are harming themselves best exemplifies the narcissistic nature of bodybuilding. 

Systematically killing yourself to look good in a mirror, appeal to gay men is outright disturbing.   

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Stop helping Pacific Islanders get even fatter and smoke themselves to death

I am sorry - poor people aren’t obese and they certainly can’t afford smokes.  

Let me re-phrase that statement to emphasis my following points. 

Truly poor people, like those up in Polynesia, shouldn’t be the fattest people on the planet, with an unhealthy perchance for smoking and still receive aid.     

Truly poor people in need of aid from countries like New Zealand don’t, for example, run symposiums focusing on the evils of soft-drink (google: Fizz, Auckland)   
Around 70 per cent of Western Samoans are obese. 

65 per cent of Tonga is obese. 

In basic terms you get fat by lack of exercise and eating/drinking too much.   

New Zealand gives both Samoa and Tonga close to NZD 20 million a year.  

Without this overseas aid all the countries of Polynesia would collapse.  

For example 40% of Samoa’s revenue comes from overseas donors.       

Governments like New Zealand like to point to tourism, education, infra-structure projects up in the islands being the core recipients of taxpayers money.   

What is conveniently left out of any sanitised Government report on aid are the crippling costs to the island economies having the fattest people, on the planet.

And stop blaming genetics.

Genetics doesn’t force a person to drink shitty soft drinks, eat canned corn beef in favour of more healthy traditional foods.  

Genetics doesn’t make you buy Pall Mall ciggies.    

Compare photos of Samoans, Fijians in the 1800’s with today.  

Since between 10 to 15 per cent (figures I found varied) of the Samoan population have  developed diabetes, these treatment costs alone are the largest part of Samoa’s health budget.   

Then add to this burden heart-attacks, strokes etc.   

Staggeringly only 16% of the Fijian population is aged more than 55 years due to premature preventable deaths.   

62% of Tongan men smoke. 

So much for Tonga ‘needing’ New Zealanders help. 

What for? 

A free carton of Bensons and Hedges for every family?    

And if you are buying smokes it’s way better to grab them off the shelves in say Tonga and Samoa where they are half the price as N.Z because they both don't impose taxes at a level anywhere near  necessary to cover the adverse health effects. 

The Island governments know ‘muggins’ New Zealand will cover the shortfall in cigarette taxes when the smokers end up in their hospital beds.

Being overweight and smoking is a death wish.    

What’s necessary is for New Zealand and other benefactors to employ some ‘tough love’ when it comes to aid in the islands.
Give their respective Governments targets to address obesity, bad health decisions or lose funding.

Monday, February 24, 2014

Gambling is not a disease or illness

To a small proportion of society gambling is addictive.

The moment you place the word ‘addictive’ in any statement it is natural to think about heroin addicts, drunks and the like.

Can gambling seriously be compared to the addictiveness of ingesting chemicals in the form of drugs and alcohol?  

For starters it’s patently stupid to tell a gambler they have a disease and “it’s not your actions that are to blame but some misfortune with your make-up”.   

Labelling them diseased means the gambler believes they are somehow rendered powerless.

It places all the blame on this nefarious disease or illness of which medical science has not definitive grasp of and certainly no cure.

There is no definitive study to say “having this gene makes you a gambling addict”.

The only people who call gambling an illness or a disease are those with vested interests: doctors and psychiatrists.

I myself gamble, on the horses.

In fact I lose money on the horses, yet I weigh this up with the entertainment and excitement I get from the exercise.
If gambling is a disease - by rights casual punters like me also carry a 'Malaria' type infection and simply don't not know it. 
If the disease theory holds water punters like me must also have something in our systems that can resist this 'invader'?  
I have yet to meet anyone who wins at the races.

This includes large gamblers.

Everyone, including the problem gambler is fully aware they are losing - only way less so than your average punter.

One of the major differences is a problem gambler has a far greater expectancy to win. 
I want to win, I don't expect to in-fact I expect to lose.
Now reverse this mental state.  

A decade or so ago having a greater expectancy to take more of the pool would have been called greed, but no-one is allowed to be so blunt nowadays.    

Addictive gamblers hate others winning money they see as theirs.  
I love when my fellow punters win big - it gives you hope, it's nice seeing people happy.   

Couple this increased expectancy with an elevated ‘thrill of the win’ and you have addictive issues.   

The problem-gambler therefore places the pleasure they derive from gambling above most of the things going-on in their lives.  

Problem gamblers exhibit narcissistic traits placing their own ‘pleasure’ above the needs of even their children, love-ones, employers etc.   

The adverse results of their addiction are compatible with alcohol and drugs but that’s as far as the connection goes.

Anyone who says gambling is a disease has vested interests or wants to defer the blame away from the real cause.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Oxfam is Not a Good Cause

Wealthy elites have co-opted political power to rig the rules of the economic game, undermining democracy and creating a world (Oxfam NZ Site)  

I am directing this missive, not just to the Trail Walkers but to anyone who considers giving money to Oxfam.  


Point One: Oxfam in New Zealand and globally is not an apolitical group.  

Don’t think for a moment Oxfam is a benign neutral charity.     

Oxfam N.Z was set-up by the current Labour Party spokesman on Housing, Phil Twyford.

To further prove Oxfam (NZ) non-neutral political stand-point, their last local Executive Director (Barry Coates) departed his role just before Christmas to run for The Green Party at the next election. 

At one stage Barry Coates was also chair of the Global Campaign for Climate Action.   

So Oxfam in New Zealand does not exist just to feed the poor, that’s just one of their guises.  

Oxfam is a political beast.   

Thinking the money raised by your walk, fundraising is going to a ‘good cause’……..think again!  

Oxfam in New Zealand is neck deep in left wing politics, exhibits an almost pathological hatred of rich people. 
The fact Oxfam in New Zealand policies mirrors those of The Green Party is no accident.    

Tax Havens for example are something this charity campaigns on.  

Ironically it’s mostly the middle class and rich Kiwi’s that support Trail Walker Oxfams cause, suckered into thinking their efforts will solely help the poor in The Pacific etc.

Because of it's extreme left wing dogma, donations to Oxfam are but effective in the short term - never treat the root cause [refer: Point Two]
It's these middle classes and rich in countries like New Zealand who are the very same demographic Oxfam thinks don’t pay anywhere enough tax.   

Oxfam campaigns locally and globally to see an end to free trade agreements, like the one between China and New Zealand that has enriched all New Zealanders.   
China is New Zealand's biggest export market, yet Oxfam (N.Z) want the Government of the day to rip-up our FTA and say goodbye to 9 billion in revenue.  
Oxfam also want all New Zealand business’s to pay their employees the Rev Waldegrave formatted ‘living wage’ irrespective of the economics.    

NZD 22.90 an hour for McDonalds bun flippers.    
NZD 47,500 P.A for an unskilled worker first year out of school. 
Oxfam shamelessly wants to tax New Zealand businesses more. 

Oxfam a so-called charity into helping staving millions has just issued a report that amongst other policies desires more regulations for business’s under the banner of equity and sustainability.   
It could be cut and pasted straight from The Greens.    

In September last year Oxfam  slandered all New Zealanders with false statements accusing the (National) Government as effectively shirking on its contributions in in Syria.  

Oxfam’s figures were 4000% out!    

Nor is there anything on Oxfam's sites that addresses the real reasons behind poverty in the Pacific and beyond……

Point Two: Poor people have too many kids!

Using the Pacific as an example here’s the facts (births per 1,000 persons) 

34.3 Solomon Islands
31.1 Vanuatu
30.9 Papua New Guinea
29.7 Naru
26.5 Tonga
24.8 Samoa
New Zealand?


That’s right most of the families up in ‘the Islands’ are twice the size as here in N.Z. 

What’s more the average GDP of a New Zealander is USD 30,000. 

The average GDP of a Solomon Islander is a paltry USD 3, 000. 

Papua New Guinea is less!  

Kiwis are subsidising the irresponsible breeding habits of our Pacific neighbours and Oxfam tries to make us all feel guilty for it, prefers instead to blame successful businessmen for not being taxed enough, when there is far easy answer.  

Stop them breeding so much is the logical answer to poverty in the Pacific. 

Any other efforts are literally feeding the issue, in some cases making it worse!
Samoa has the fattest people on the planet. 
Tonga is a close second.    
Oxfam is heavily (pun intended) involved in both Samoa and Tonga.

Imagine suggesting 'interfering with birth control' is a solution to the pinkos at Oxfam?   



Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Smokers are simply manifesting their Suicidal Tendencies...Leave them to it

               "Time takes a cigarette, puts it in your mouth" [David Bowie]

Back in 2008 the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich highlighted the link between young smokers and suicide.  Thoughts about suicide and attempts to commit suicide were four times more frequent for German teens aged 14-24 that smoked.  

In the U.S a year later Ronald Kessler and his fellow Harvard University colleagues provided data that smokers were about two or three times as likely to have thought about or attempted suicide in the past year than non-smokers. The more you smoked the more you thought about ending your life.  

This result backs-up a ‘mass’ study done involving 300,000 U.S smoking/non-smoking military employees over the period 1987 to 1996.   

Suicide and Smoking are unequivocally linked.  

These studies however concentrated exclusively on the act of killing oneself on the spot, rather than taking the long route via lung cancer etc.  

So what about smokers who don’t take overdoses of pills, place a gun to the forehead – are they too suicidal, just too ‘chicken’ to jump off a bridge?     

All smokers know they are deliberately ending their lives early, yet they are perfectly happy exchanging a shorter life for what they consider ‘a pleasure’.  

Most smokers dismiss outside advice to quit the habit with the quip “You have to die some-way”.

I’m sure you’ve heard the dismissive barb before, more than once.  
Is this simply a form of the philosophical doctrine of fatalism: death is inevitable so live your life to the fullest doing whatever spins your wheels? 

This could be the case were it not a fact smoking is strongly linked with suicide of the immediate kind.   

Repeat: the more you smoke the more you think about suicide.  

Similarly it’s a fact, smokers as a group end their lives earlier than non-smokers and they largely don’t care, remain almost defiantly proud of this sad stat.     

For all intents every smoker is manifesting suicidal tendencies, most opting to take the long-way out. 

For this demographic, if it wasn’t smokes it would be some other health impinging vice.