The Press Council P.O Box 10 879, The Terrace Wellington RE ...

31 May 2005The Press CouncilP.O Box 10 879, The TerraceWellingtonRE: ComplaintDear Sir/MadamI write to you in relation to an article that appeared in the Dominion Post on 17 th March2005 and also re-printed in the Timaru Herald on 26 th March 2005.We have serious concerns with this article, which are detailed in the attached document.Please also find attached:• copies of correspondence between FitnessNZ and the Dominion Post’s FeaturesEditor, and also the Editor of the Timaru Herald• a letter of complaint from David Liow (one of those interviewed for the feature)- Marked Letter A• a letter from Nigel Harris, Senior Lecturer Auckland University of Technology- Marked Letter B• a letter from Nathan Burrows, Registration Manager, NZ Register of ExerciseProfessionals - Marked Letter CIt is particularly concerning that the article is written at a time that many health issues(obesity and diabetes to name just two) are growing at epidemic rates, and correctadvice about physical activity is essential to ensure these issues are addressed.The article did nothing to help people get accurate information, but instead onlyreinforced “excuses” of why not to exercise, based on flawed opinion.Given the serious nature of the concerns, and that in our view the entire article is centredaround using sensationalism coupled with poor research, we would appreciate yoursupport in recommending the remedy we have sought – namely for any newspapersthat published the story to run another story, on the same topic, with the sameprominence, that is balanced, clearly differentiates opinion from fact, and ensuresappropriate sources are quoted.For Fitness New ZealandRichard BeddieCEO

Principle Breached: Principle 1: AccuracyPublications (newspapers and magazines) should be guided at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance, and should notdeliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission, or omission.Note: Many of the issues here also relate to Principle 6: Comment and Fact. Where possible distinction is madebetween each principle, so that they can be reviewed independently, but have been cross referenced.The issueThe article is littered with factually inaccurate statements, that could have been easily verified by contactingan appropriate organisation. Upon querying certain items with the feature writer, she claimed that they weredirect quotes from individuals (see also Principle 6 – Comment and Fact).The article is unbalanced in that it shows views that are completely out of touch with those commonly held byexercise professionals and academics alike. While we recognise the right to express opinions (see principle 6)where this opinion is at odds with commonly held beliefs, then to ensure the article is balanced, other viewsmust also be shown, and appropriate weighting given to a “lone view”.Details:Specific references to factually incorrect statements include:An extremely serious error (and central the article): The statement “Gym exercise, unless extraordinarilyprolonged, won’t burn fat” (caption underneath the main photo) was used to sensationalise the issue, and nocounter view shown. This particular statement is fundamentally flawed, and completely incorrectPlease refer to Letter B, from Nigel Harris, Senior Lecturer at Auckland University of Technology.See also Letter A, bullet point three, from David Liow (Mr Liow has a masters degree in physicaleducation, has lectured at Welltec on this topic, and been practicing in the field for 13 years).In the right hand column, near the bottom a reference is made to: “There is some quality assurance through a newregistration scheme which requires at least one year of training”. This is completely incorrect. Proof of this iscontained in the attached Letter C from the Registration System’s Registration Manager.In the same column in the 3 rd paragraph from the top it is claimed “Body Builders, who often become personaltrainers …” . This claim is totally without foundation, and is factually untrue. When contact was made withthe article writer about this issue, the defence was made that ‘This was a quote from Osteopath Lawrence Cartmell’and ‘it’s common sense’. Firstly, in the context of the article it appears as a fact, when in fact it is opinion (seePrinciple 6: Comment and Fact for more on this) and also a clearly inappropriate source that is quoted (whatwould an Osteopath know about the make up of the exercise industry?). FitnessNZ conducts New Zealand’sonly annual survey on the make up of exercise professionals in New Zealand. The survey includes suchthings as qualifications of exercise professionals, and together with the New Zealand Registrations system(REPs), has detailed information on the make up of the exercise industry in New Zealand. The number ofpersonal trainers that have a body building background is extremely small (less than 1%) and this would havebeen quickly pointed out had anyone contacted FitnessNZ. We note that the feature writer was made awareof the existence of both REPs and FitnessNZ by Dave Liow, who specifically recommended that she contactboth bodies. The claim by the report writer that is was ‘common sense’ reinforces our view that the article waspoorly researched, and when a claim is made that supports the sensational nature of the article it is printedwithout verification.It should be noted while the last two errors listed above are not central to the emphasis of the feature, theydo show the lack of research in preparing the article. There appears to be absolutely no checking withappropriate sources when it came to matters of fact that could be easily verified (or refuted).

Significant OmissionsThroughout the article, claims are made (often these are actually opinion, quoted as fact, which in itself is abreach of Principle 6: Comment and Fact) that support the sensational nature of the article, and show only oneside of an issue.As an example, in defending their actions, the Dominion Post makes reference to quotes from Alan Walmsley.No attempt has been made to verify these claims with an independent party, nor in fact is this particularperson necessarily regarded as the best “expert” in this field (Alan is highly regarded in academic circles onlab based topics, but he is not a practitioner). There are numerous academics that are also practitioners thatwould have given their view that would have completely contradicted the heading, caption and subheading ofthe article (in turn this would have changed the whole thrust of the article).Please refer to Letter B from Nigel Harris and Letter A from David Liow.The practice of showing one side of an argument is continued throughout the article:• statements attributed to an osteopath on the danger of exercise, in particular pump classes. The articlequotes “It’s my view that a significant number of people survive them but don’t gain from them”, with nomention of the specific quality standards that are available in New Zealand to address this issue.(please see Letter C from REPs).• The quotes from Lawrence Cartmell continue “Gyms in my view are money making ventures …”, not onlydoes this show the person ignorance of the industry (many exercise providers are non profit in nature)but there is no counter view shown. While it is not the intention of this submission to detail each andevery counter view possible, an example of a counter view in this case would be “The fitness centresmodel is the most financially successful business model within the entire sport, fitness and recreation industry,showing that they offer services and products that customers want ...” (we have research that supports this).• “{Mr Liow} agrees with Mr Cartmell that exercise on weight machines has limited benefit”. Not only does theperson this quote is attributed to (David Liow) completely disagree with this claim (see Letter A fromDavid Liow, bullet point two), but also it is at odds with research showing that resistance training isone of the most effective ways of building lean muscle mass, raising metabolic rate, and therebyassisting with weight loss (see Letter B from Nigel Harris, Senior Lecturer Auckland University ofTechnology, to support this).• In the right hand column, a claim is made “… since anyone can be a personal trainer if they’re persuasiveand look the part”. This is incorrect, and in fact over 85% of New Zealand employers will onlyemploy/use the services of, Personal Trainers who are registered with the NZ Register of ExerciseProfessionals (REPs). Individuals registered with REPs not only have to meet high initial standards,but also meet strict criteria for ongoing education, and are also bound by a code of ethics. Omittingthis shows either bias of the reporter, or poor research. It should be noted that the reporter was madeaware of the registration system by Daid Liow, who was interviewed for this article. Full contactdetails were provided by David, and he specifically recommended to the writer, to contact REPs.

Principle Breached: Principle 6 – Comment and FactPublications should, as far as possible, make proper distinctions between reporting of facts and conjecture, passing ofopinions and comment.Note: Many of the issues here also relate to Principle 1: Accuracy. Where possible distinction is made betweeneach principle, so that they can be reviewed independently, but have been cross referenced.The Issue:The article is full of statements that appear as fact, with no clarification that they are an opinion of one person.This issue is compounded by the fact that the opinion(s) stated are often either at odds with well establishedand researched principles, and/or are opinion(s) based entirely around conjecture.The DetailsOne of the most blatant examples of this in the caption underneath the main photo which reads “Making itcount. Gym exercise, unless extraordinarily prolonged, won’t burn fat. For the body to burn fat it needs an hour orlonger of exercise at “moderate or low intensity”, the walking speed just before breaking into a run.”When the issue of this statement was raised with the Dominion Post, their reply (see their letter of 12 April2005) states “This is a direct quote from Dr Alan Walmsley”. While we respect the right to quote opinion, it is notshown as such, and quotes are not used, nor is a name attributed to the statement. In this case the specifics ofthe claim would be refuted by most (if not all) academics who work in this area, and as such it should beclearly shown as the opinion of one person. So not only does it breach Principle 6, by not making a properdistinction between facts and opinion, but also Principle 1: Accuracy, by not showing a balanced view on thetopic.See Letter B from Nigel HarrisSee also Letter A from David LiowAnother example of a breach of Principle 6 is the claim made that “body builders, who often become personaltrainers …” is printed without any quotes, nor clearly attributable to an individual as opinion. In the contextof the article it could easily be read/assumed to be a fact. Originally this was thought to be a factual error, andwhen the article writer was contacted and the error pointed out, the claim was made ‘This was a quote fromOsteopath Lawrence Cartmell’ and ‘it’s common sense’ (both said verbally in a phone conversation). If it is a quotethen it should be shown as such, and in line with Principle 1: Accuracy, for the sake of balance, it should eitherbe from a source that actually has factual knowledge on the subject (such as Fitness New Zealand) or at thevery least the two different views on the subject shown.Breaches of this principle, together with breaches of Principle 1: Accuracyare central to our concern about the article.

Principle Breached: Principle 10: Headlines and CaptionsHeadlines, sub-headings, and captions should accurately and fairly convey the substance of the report they are designed tocover.The Issue:The headline “Failing to Shape up” sensationalises the issues raised, without any real substantiation. Thecaption below the photo stating “Making it count. Gym exercise, unless extraordinarily prolonged, won’t burn fat.For the body to burn fat it needs an hour or longer of exercise at “moderate or low intensity”, the walking speed justbefore breaking into a run.” is both factually inaccurate 1 (Principle 1: Accuracy) and is incorrectly attributed as“fact” when it is only opinion (Principle 6: Comment and Fact). When asked where this information wassourced, the report writer claimed it was a direct quote from Alan Walmsley (quoted elsewhere in the article),although the caption makes no reference to this as a quote, and instead states it as a matter of fact.The Details:When contacted the report writer verbally claimed that “The article was balanced, showing both positive andnegative elements of the industry”. The headline, together with the introductory paragraph that says “Gymsare not the cure-all for saggy bottoms and flabby underarms they might seem. They could even be bad for your health.”,either does not convey the substance of the report OR the report itself is one sided. If it does convey thesubstance of the report then the report shows a clear bias, showing only one side of the argument!The wording of the sub heading (“Making it count …” and the caption “Gyms are not …” are both refuted in theLetter B (Nigel Harris, Senior Lecturer, Auckland University of Technology). At best, they should have bothbeen attributed to opinion (Principle 6: Comment and Fact).1 See Letter B, from Nigel Harris, Senior Lecturer, Auckland University of Technology.

Principle Breached: Principle 9 – SubterfugeEditors should generally not sanction misrepresentation, deceit or subterfuge to obtain information for publication unlessthere is a clear case of public interest and the information cannot be obtained in any other way.The IssueOne of those interviewed (David Liow) was mislead as to the purpose of the article. This information was farfrom have being in the category of “cannot be obtained in any other way”. Rather, we believe the deception wassimply an attempt to sensationalise an issue, in an attempt to make the story ‘more interesting’, and see noreason not to be open about the purpose of the article with any of those interviewed.The DetailsSee introductory paragraph in Letter A, from David LiowPrinciple Breached: Principle 2: CorrectionsWhere it is established that there has been published information that is materially incorrect then the publication shouldpromptly correct the error giving the correction fair prominence. In some circumstances it will be appropriate to offer anapology and a right of reply to an affected person or persons.The Issue:When the issue was first bought to the attention of the features editor an offer was made for us to “Submit aletter to the editor for consideration” on 12 th April 2005. We believe that given that we had made the substantialnature of our concerns quite clear, both in writing and during an in depth phone conversation with the reportwriter before laying this complaint, we believe that the offer of a letter “for consideration” breaches Principle 2,in that its does not give “the correction fair prominence.” Given that the original article was prominently placedin the paper, and of substantial size, having a letter “for consideration” is disproportionate when addressing thecorrection.The Details:The Dominion Post has acknowledged errors in the article (see their letter dated 29 May 2005 in which theyoffer to print a clarification), and while they fail to acknowledge many of the more serious issues, this aloneshows that they are aware of the nature of the concerns, and inaccuracies. To offer a “a letter… forconsideration” is a clear breach of Principle 2, as it fails to give ‘fair prominence’ to any correction.Along the same lines, David Liow was offered to have one fact re-clarified (and printed), when he wasseriously misquoted on a number of key issues, and mislead as to the purpose of the article. Once again webelieve this is a breach of Principle 2.We believe that re-running a story with similar prominence to the original article, would be consistent withthe intent of Principle 2.

Competitive Edge FitnessExercise RehabilitationExercise Science EducationHigh Performance Sports TrainingDave LiowMPhEd(dist), SESNZ L3 Phys.Cond, CHEK II04 387 7997; 027 288 7696dave@cef.co.nzLETTER AI am writing to express my outrage at the pointless, damaging and inaccurate articlewritten By Diana Dekker in the Dominion Post on March 17 th , 2005.I was seriously misquoted and the content of my interview was used completely out ofcontext for the article. I was also mislead to the purpose of the article. If I had haveknown the angle of this article I never would have consented to have my nameassociated with this biased piece of journalism. The article was full of inaccuraciesand half-truths.It’s interesting that celebrities, academics, and other health professionals, notpractising in the fitness industry were the main contributors for the article. In myinterview I supplied relevant and useful information that emphasized how importantgyms and fitness professionals can be in changing peoples’ lives for good - clearly thisinformation didn’t support the angle of the writer so wasn’t used.For the record:• Wellington personal trainers are in my opinion the best educated trainers in thecountry. I have been running exercise science workshops for on-going trainingfor the last seven years in Wellington. The international presenters that havepresented at these workshops have often commented that the standard oftrainers that attend these sessions is well above other countries. New Zealand isan international leader in fitness.• A key point that you needed to emphasise in your article (so your readers couldat least get some useful information) is the need for exercisers to increase leanmuscle mass. The gym is a great environment to achieve this. Strength traininghas great benfits to health and physical appearance. Research has clearlyshowed the importance of increasing muscle mass to help with healthproblems such as obesity, ageing, and diabetes to name a few.• Exercising at low intensities to burn fat is simply incorrect. The fat burning zone isa myth. This is poor advice to give your readers. Low intensity exercise teachesthe body how to conserve fuel and doesn’t boost the body’s metabolic ratelike intense intervals or weight training. Poorly conditioned exercisers may needto work at lower intensities and build up to higher intensity exercise.• Lawrence Cartmell is a valued colleague of mine. It is essential to understandthat Lawrence works with movement and injuries NOT with aesthetics. This is alarge point of difference in philosophies of training. However, you can train forfunction and aesthetics, and I’ll repeat this several times, if you have a goodpersonal trainer. Over the last 15 years I have trained hundreds of worldchampion, Commonwealth and Olympic athletes – they move well and havegreat physiques. Most people come to the gym to “lose weight and tone up”.They rarely come to gyms to improve the way they move.• I was unaware that body builders often became personal trainers. I am awareof several who have, but the other 99% of trainers I work with have had atertiary education to become a personal trainer. It is correct that anyone cancall themselves a personal trainer – regardless of their educational background.However this has now been addressed in New Zealand as almost all of thegyms (and especially in Wellington) will only employ Registered Exercise

Professionals. By using REPs registered trainers, this ensures the client that theirtrainer is suitably qualified and is also involved in on-going education.• The quality of workout you get from a pump class depends on the quality of thefitness professional (again). Better gyms also have introduction classes thatteach participants in small groups how to safely lift weights. Pump classes canprovide excellent conditioning if they’re done with correct technique.• Exercise professionals are the experts on exercise! This is a fact. No other groupof health professionals the same level of specific training to design andimplement exercise programmes. It needs to be made clear that the publicwill receive the best exercise advice from a REPs registered personal trainer.• If you have a specialist problem – you should see a specialist. You don’t go toyour GP for brain surgery. If you have a particular exercise goal you should finda personal trainer that has experience in the area. Some trainers specialise inweight loss, others in sports training, and others in exercise rehabilitation.• While word of mouth is a good recommendation. However to ensure that youget the best exercise advice find a recommended REPs registered trainer.• The aim of REPs is not to “knock the bozos off the bottom”. This is not the sort ofcomment I would say. I have been quoted incorrectly. The aim of REPs is toensure that the public is getting safe and effective exercise advice.• You’ve also misquoted me about weight machines. Weight machines havelimited benefit for improving movement. In terms of “tightening up the flab”weight machines can be useful.I sincerely hope that you will look to rectify the misinformation and the damage that youhave created with this article. Inactivity (which I spoke about in my interview at length!) isone of the most potent killers of our modern age. We need to encourage society to movemore – whether it’s in the gym or at home. Many people choose the gym as theirmovement venue. With guidance from a qualified fitness professional the journey toimproved health and body can be accelerated and achieved safely. My colleagues dothis everyday with thousands of clients.SincerelyDave LiowCo-director Competitive Edge Fitness LtdWellington027 288 7696, 04 3877997

To: Fitness New ZealandFrom: Nigel HarrisSenior Lecturer in exercise scienceAuckland University of Technology Date: 25 May 2005Re: Dominion Post article “Failing to shape up” by Dianna DekkerLETTER BThe article entitled “Failing to shape up” (Dominion Post, April 2005) does not present an accuratereflection of commonly accepted best practice for weight loss exercise in gyms. The statements…“Essentially gym exercises, unless extraordinarily prolonged won’t burn fat … stepping for half anhour or pounding round in an exercise class will not make a dent in the flab on your thighs …”, andthe claim that the body needs an hour or longer of exercise at …“moderate or low density (sic)…” aremisleading.I refute these assertions.As a senior lecturer in exercise science at AUT (one of the largest providers of training courses forfitness industry professionals in NZ) for the past seven years I have been involved with regularlyreviewing the literature on weight loss, and receiving feedback from those directly involved withachieving successful long-term weight management with clients. It is entirely wrong that exercisemust be at least one hour long for effective fat loss to occur. The approach that successful fat lossthrough exercise is purely about burning as much fat as possible during the actual exercise session isfundamentally flawed. It is true that the body can only burn fat as a fuel source at lower exerciseintensities. Indeed, most research suggests that fat use peaks at around 60% of maximum intensity,and that contribution to energy production via fat use declines up to about 85% of maximum,depending on the individuals’ fitness levels. It is also true that at higher intensities the body burnspredominantly carbohydrates as a fuel source. Some years ago these accepted facts gave rise to apopular but now defunct theory of the ‘fat burning zone’, which asserted that fat loss exercise shouldbe all low intensity and long duration as per the quoted comments above. However, this does notaccount for the total calories burned during an exercise session nor the amount of fat burned after theexercise session has finished. Enhanced post-exercise energy consumption (EPOC) demonstratesthat, the higher the intensity of the exercise session, the longer the body will continue to burn energyafter the exercise session has finished. The energy burned during this time will include calories fromfat stores. Additionally, the higher the intensity of the exercise session, the greater the affect it willhave on elevating the body’s basal metabolic rate (BMR) otherwise known as the ‘energy cost ofliving’. This means that regular exercise, particularly higher intensity exercise, even in short sharpbursts, increases the amount of calories you burn in general. Fat loss is all about the energy balanceequation. That is, if a person burns more calories in a day than they intake in food and drink they willLOSE weight, and vice versa. Thus, it’s not only the calories and fat you burn during workouts, butthe influence collective workouts will have on the body in the intervening time periods. I do not claimthat all exercise should be short high intensity work but simply that, for effective weight loss andgeneral cardiovascular condition, exercise sessions do not need to be at least one hour, or at lowintensity to be effective.To achieve long-term success in weight loss and an improvement in body shape most peoplerespond optimally to a structured exercise programme that incorporates regular progressions inresistance training and cardiovascular conditioning. For many people, shorter, more focusedsessions are far more achievable and successful than a lot of very low intensity exercise, particularlyas a person progresses past the initial stages of an exercise programme and gains some basicfitness. Where better to receive this than in a gym environment guided by an industry registeredexercise professional?

13 th May 2005The Press CouncilP.O Box 10 879, The TerraceWellingtonLETTER CTo whom it may concernA statement is made in the article of 17 th March 2005 that claims “…a new registrationscheme which requires at least one year of training”. The New Zealand Register ofExercise Professionals (REPs) does not use length of study in any of its criteria, andinstead uses the worldwide agreed process of ensuring both competency and experienceto ensure that individuals meet the standards required by the industry.REPs is now one of only three registration systems that is recognised worldwide.Together with Fitness Australia and REPs UK, New Zealand’s registration system nowforms the world standard for exercise professionals. At present over 25 counties aroundthe world are at various stages of attempting to match their criteria with that of REPsNZ/Australia/REPs UK.It is somewhat ironic that at the exact time the article was being written that makes somany sensationalist claims about exercise professionals not being of high standard inNew Zealand, a representative from REPs was attending the worldwide conference ofexercise professionals (IHRSA) in San Francisco, at which REPs NZ was held up as amodel for other countries. For this reason, the REPs representative was asked to do animpromptu presentation to over 30 countries on how to set up such a registration system.There are claims in the article about Pump classes, and possible injury risks. We agreethat any exercise if performed incorrectly can lead to injury, but in New Zealand we arefortunate to have specific standards for delivering such classes – this was totally omittedfrom the article.It is clear from reading the article that little effort was put into verifying informationprovided to the feature writer.Yours faithfullyFor the New Zealand Register of Exercise Professionals (REPs)Nathan BurrowsRegistration Manager