GAH! Questionable personal trainer issue

Arghlita · 04-06-2006, 03:38 PM

My best friend is getting married in November and she's trying to lose a little bit of weight. She's taking all the right steps of slowly cleaning up her diet and increasing her activity level. However, I'm talking to her on IM and I'm worried that her personal trainer is a moron. Although I may be completely wrong. In fact, *I* might be the moron.

J. R.: what about bones?

me: ...

J. R.: also, what i'm saying is not that i don't have muscle.
but muscle that goes unused develops integrated fat.

me: J, "lean" mass is everything that isn't fat.
Your bones don't gain weight just because you do.
Nor do your internal organs.

J. R.: no, but they shouldn't count toward your msucle mass either.

me: ...
But that's what "lean mass" is
Bones, internal organs, water, muscle.
Since you can't build up internal organs...
If you gain lean mass, it is mostly muscle.
You can gain bone mass, but only by aggressive lifting and supplementation.

J. R.: the woman who did my training session (didn't go into detail but) did separate into fat, muscle, bone.

me: ?
She's a magician.
Seriously, how?

J. R.: i think what she more was saying was that some of my mass had to be accounted for by bone, etc. and therefore it wasn't posisble for me to have the body fat info she was getting.

me: right
Getting to over 50% is actually hard.

J. R.: although she was doing my tricep, which is ALL fat.
J. R.: at least where she was.
when you weigh 330?

me: Honey, I've talked to 400 and 500 pound people.
It's damn hard to get to more than 50% fat unless you literally never move from bed.
Your body - bones, muscles, organs, blood - has to be able to support the fat.
I'm guessing you are in the low 40s.
The skin fold calliper has a margin of error of 6% when done PERFECTLY.
How many measurements did she take?
If it was less than 5, she did a half assed job.
3 is mediocre
1 is criminal.

J. R.: she measured a couple of times, but she was getting unbelievably high readings, so she told me to come back in a few days and have it redone, but i never did.

me: Measured what though?
Just your arm?

Okay, the deal is that I realize some people who weigh 330 could be over 55% fat, but my friend JR is *really* active. Even after training for a half marathon, I have trouble keeping up with her on a "casual" stroll. We were roommates in college and J is just a big girl in every way. Not just fat, but BIG. Lots of everything. She grew up on a farm and did hard manual labor from before age 5. I find it hard to believe she has more body fat than people who outweigh her who can't climb a single flight of stairs without huffing and puffing. To clarify, I'm not saying that everyone who has ever weighed more than J is by necessity out of shape. But the women I have talked to who weigh more *and* have had body fat testing are nowhere near as firm and strong as she is. I think she could bench press an extended cab truck.

So could I have said it better? Am I way off? J is a really smart girl, so I'm afraid that her confusion is the result of a combination of profound ambivelence towards her body and an incoherent personal trainer. Should the trained have tried measuring her in other places or not?

:rock2:

**EME** · 04-06-2006, 04:13 PM

Hi Arghlita,

Skinfold caliper measurements of bodyfat can be done on anywhere from 3 to 9 points on the body.

The most common methods are the 3 point and 7 point measurement.

On women, the 3 point measurement should be done in these three places:

Tricep,
Suprailiac ( above the iliac crest between the hip bone and the lower rib ),
Thigh.

On women, the 7 point measurement should e done in these places:

Chest
Mid-Axillary
Suprailiac
Abdominal
Thigh
Subscapular
Tricep

There is an inherent problem with doing skin caliper measurements on really large people. It can simply be difficult to get a good, consistent measurement, especially if the person doing the caliper reading isn't skilled, or simply isn't good at it.

A one point measurement is simply not an accurate measure of bodyfat.

A three point measurement can give you a fairly accurate picture, but it still can be off by several %. I find that accurately measured three point readings are typically low by 2-3% on athletic individuals.

A 7 point measurement is a much better indicator when done correctly.

The key is that the results are only as good as the measurements, and if the measurements aren't good, neither is the result.

Also, with regard to your question about LBM.

Remember, LBM stands for Lean Body Mass, not Lean Body Muscle. You are correct that muscle is just one component in LBM. Bones, organs, etc... everthing that isn't fat, is LBM.

So, when you measure bodyfat you are putting your caliper measurements into a formula that has been calculated to output fat % based on those measurements.

When you subtract your amount of bodyfat from your total weight, you are left with LBM. Again, this is not an indicator of how much muscle you have, but an indicator of how much mass you have that is fat.. and how much you have that isn't fat. That's really all it tells you.

As far as the actual % of bodyfat of your friend... it's unlikely that she is 50%. Over 32% is considered obese for women, and the result that was given to her was probably the result of an inaccurate or improperly done test.
It's impossible for me to say that for sure, but if the trainer only measured in one location, it's safe to say that it was not an accurate estimate of her true bodyfat %

Please let me know if you have any additional questions or problems.

- EME

Arghlita · 04-06-2006, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EME

Hi Arghlita,

As far as the actual % of bodyfat of your friend... it's unlikely that she is 50%. Over 32% is considered obese for women, and the result that was given to her was probably the result of an inaccurate or improperly done test.
It's impossible for me to say that for sure, but if the trainer only measured in one location, it's safe to say that it was not an accurate estimate of her true bodyfat %

Please let me know if you have any additional questions or problems.

- EME

Thank you for clarifying. Basically, the trainer told her after taking a tricep measurement that the numbers were coming out wrong. But rather than trying the other two points of a three point measurement to double check, she told J that she must be severly dehydrated and to try again later.

In all fairness, at 330 pounds she is obese by any standard. At 225, I have a body fat estimated at between 33 and 36% (three point measurement) and in comparing our bodies, I'm guessing she's a little over 40% but 55% is absurd. I can see her muscles - yes, they are under a blanket of fat but they are clearly visible in many places. She is much leaner than most women of her height and weight. According to her doctor, her health is literally perfect other than the excess weight, so I just can't buy 55%

For someone like J (or me for that matter) who is obese, what would be the best measurement? I've already convinced her to tape once a month and weigh in twice on the same scale, but to really measure her progress a BF estimate would be nice.

**ellipticer** · 04-07-2006, 12:05 AM

Formulas based on statistical sampling will more often fail at the extremes. Meaning if the formulas were extrapolated during the 80's when there weren't as many obese people to measure, the numbers they use to give "50% body fat" are not very accurate because there weren't many people to sample at that size. Same thing for trying to caliper under 10%.

**Grunt76** · 04-07-2006, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arghlita

Thank you for clarifying. Basically, the trainer told her after taking a tricep measurement that the numbers were coming out wrong. But rather than trying the other two points of a three point measurement to double check, she told J that she must be severly dehydrated and to try again later.

In all fairness, at 330 pounds she is obese by any standard. At 225, I have a body fat estimated at between 33 and 36% (three point measurement) and in comparing our bodies, I'm guessing she's a little over 40% but 55% is absurd. I can see her muscles - yes, they are under a blanket of fat but they are clearly visible in many places. She is much leaner than most women of her height and weight. According to her doctor, her health is literally perfect other than the excess weight, so I just can't buy 55%

For someone like J (or me for that matter) who is obese, what would be the best measurement? I've already convinced her to tape once a month and weigh in twice on the same scale, but to really measure her progress a BF estimate would be nice.

Some fat people have really really tight skin and extremely firm fat. This gives the impression that they are much leaner than they actually are. How tall is this 330lb person? For her to be 50% bf, would mean that she would be EXTREMELY lean at 180lbs. If she's anywhere under 6' tall, she's gotta be above 50% bodyfat. OK so she has muscle mass and big bones, but there's no way she'd be ripped at 200lbs. If she were 45% bodyfat, she'd be totally ripped at 210lbs. Impossible unless she's both a genetic freak and above 6'2" or so... And if it were so, all she'd have to do is rip down, and she'd be a qualifier for pro bodybuilding shows.

Question about this very topic: when taking the skinfold measurements, does bodyweight come into the formula? I've had some skinfolds measured and an incredibly high BF% number given to me, but bodyweight was never asked. Which seems really really strange to me.

Arghlita · 04-07-2006, 02:16 AM

Grunt:

I'm 5'5" and 225. According to a recent test, I have 36% BF. That means I have 144lbs of "lean body mass." And yet, when I weighed 150lbs I was not "ripped." Why? Because when you gain a bunch of fat like I did, you have to gain muscles that stabalize you when you walk/do every day movements. At 150, I was 24-27% fat, which is average. So while I did very little exercise other than walking between weighing that what I do now, I did gain a bunch of lean body mass simply from hauling my own, now larger butt around. (As an aside, last time I was this body mass I was 30 pounds lighter - and I wear only one size larger than I did then.)

J is 5'11.5, so yes she basically *is* 6 feet tall. She has been overweight since childhood which means her bones were set wider at puberty which means that her bones are in fact "large."

However, I have personally taken her measurements. I gained about 11 inches around my waist from gaining 100 pounds. She's 105 pounds heavier than me but only 7 inches larger in the waist - due to height and build. I wear a 20/22 - she wears a 22/24. When I tried on a dress for her wedding, they were handing us the same size. Yes, visually she is much bigger than me. But I don't believe that she has 19% more body fat than me. That's not computing with me. Yes, height makes a difference. 5.5 inches taller than me, and she wears the same size at times but is 20% more fat AND 100 pounds heavier?

Also, her muscles are enormous - easily larger than people with 165lbs of lean mass. She is correct in assuming she has more intramuscular fat however this was a skin fold measurement so really, that shouldn't count.

**Grunt76** · 04-07-2006, 04:03 AM

What I say still stands. Believe you me, I understand perfectly about getting bigger muscles and especially the strength from weight. Her calves will be humongous. The rest of her muscles? Well... Look at fully natural female "bodybuilders" that train, eat, rest and supplement for pure muscle SIZE. Look at Kendra Elias. These people make it their professional business to put on as much muscle as possible. They will all tell you that strapping 100lbs to their backs isn't optimal for muscle size. Strength, maybe. Endurance, sure.

I never said that a non-athlete 165lb woman would compare to J's muscle mass. Bottom line, no matter how you cut it, she cannot possibly have more muscle mass than a natural female bodybuilder. Unless she has a beard and is also a genetic freak. And even then.

BTW being 36% @ 225 puts you at 144lbs LBM. If you were a VERY lean 10% bodyfat and kept all that lean body mass, you'd be a lean 160lbs @ 5'5". That sets you up for professional all-out bodybuilding provided you could lose only the fat. As we know that muscle memory is a fact, you should theoretically be able to do this and even if you did lose quite a bit of muscle when getting lean, that amount of lean body mass puts you into a downright BRAWNY kind of shape. Your BF% is certainly underestimated by a substantial amount. It's just a number though. Why put so much importance to it? Eat right, train right and A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G is possible. That's all anyone needs to know IMO.

Arghlita · 04-07-2006, 05:09 AM

Well grunt, here's the thing - when you are an obese woman you must have more muscle mass than a body builder half your weight in the same way that an obese man of 330 pounds has more lean mass than a 165lb man trying to gain muscle. Let's say both men pick up a 10lb dumbell. Mr. Big Pants is also lifting twice as much arm, so he's lifting more than someone half his size using the same dumbell. If I were to take a 165lb man and make him carry his same-size twin brother around, he'd have to gain some major muscles, don't you think?

So if I was 36% BF at 197 when I was 13 years old (as tested by a doctor and a personal trainer and my freshman health class) I had 126lbs of lean mass before 12 years of exercise, including 4 years of military service. I doubt that it requires being a genetic "freak" to gain 18lbs of muscle in 12 years. (In the middle of that, I was down to 150 and 24%BF or 114lb muscle... even though I was on a diet and lifting heavy and you know, in the military doing PT.) But just so you know, yes I *do* have a beard because of a hormone imbalance that I've been fighting for 15 years (thanks!) so I may in fact be a genetic freak regardless :nosthumbs

Why do I care? I was trying to lift my friend, JR, out of her depression and motivate her. It's hard to convince her to keep changing if, according to her trainer, she's making negative progress. She doesn't own a scale of her own because she'd have to special order, so the gym scale and BF testing are what she has to go on. I was trying to convince her that the trainer's estimate was way off. JR is new to training in a gym, and although she's no stranger to hard work she's confronting a major failure in her life (personal physical health). I'm trying everything in my power to motivate her and I wanted to make sure I was telling the truth. It seems like the jury is hung on this.

I do thank you for your input, but overall I'm going to have to take it with a chunk of sodium.

**Grunt76** · 04-07-2006, 11:32 PM

In a desperate case such as your friends' *I* would not hesitate to put her on T3 until she's good. And if she develops hypothyroidia from it, which is unlikely, then that's still not so huge a problem as being 200lbs overweight.

I wouldn't hesitate for a second to do it, provided she takes care of herself and gets to know how to use it.

**Grunt76** · 04-08-2006, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grunt76

In a desperate case such as your friends' *I* would not hesitate to put her on T3 until she's good. And if she develops hypothyroidia from it, which is unlikely, then that's still not so huge a problem as being 200lbs overweight.

I wouldn't hesitate for a second to do it, provided she takes care of herself and gets to know how to use it.

Of course she'd have to begin having some kind of willpower to have a decent diet and exercise regimen first. OBVIOUSLY.

Arghlita · 04-08-2006, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grunt76

In a desperate case such as your friends' *I* would not hesitate to put her on T3 until she's good. And if she develops hypothyroidia from it, which is unlikely, then that's still not so huge a problem as being 200lbs overweight.

I wouldn't hesitate for a second to do it, provided she takes care of herself and gets to know how to use it.

J is in great health and there's no reason (in my mind) that she can't lose all the weight she needs to lose just by changing her lifestyle - no need to put her on supplements or meds if she hasn't committed to a diet and exercise regime first, you know? It would be a waste of money. If it comes to medicine, she is employed by a pharmecuetical corp and can get many medicines for steep discounts or for free. Her doctor recommends that she give lifestyle changes a serious try. She does have a deadline for making these changes and this is really the first time she's given it her full effort. (I'm chatting about this with her and she wanted to emphasize that this is really her first time trying anything at all.)

Also, her "ideal" BMI is 150-180 or so. Let's say she's 55% fat (for the sake of argument) and her lean mass right now is around 148lbs. If she lost 100 pounds while simply maintaining that lean mass (which I believe is a very, very low estimate) she would cut her body fat to 35% - while still overweight, not nearly so bad. Her personal goal is to aim for 180-200 because, having been overweight since childhood, she is unlikely to hit the low end of her weight range. In other words, she wants to lose 130-150 pounds (not 200). I don't think she physically could hit 130 without removing a limb. Or two.

This may seem like a desperate amount, but I've been part of a very supportive weight loss community for people trying to lose 100+ pounds and Jenny isn't even close to bad off. She's physically active and has low blood pressure and cholesterol. She cooks at home and eats vegetables and fruits with every meal (farm girl, after all). She can walk several miles at a race walking pace without getting winded. In short, she's halfway there. I really believe lifting weights to maintain her current muscle mass combined with cutting simple carbs and overall calories will take her, if not to goal, at least through the first 100 pounds.

Jenny shared with me that she hasn't weighed less than 275 in the last 12 years (since age 13) and while it has gradually taken a toll on her health, the situation isn't quite dire enough to warrant trying anything other than diet + exercise unless that doesn't work for her. I expect that if she sticks to a plan even 75% of the time, the weight is going to start coming off.

If, in 3 months or so, she hasn't lost at least 15 pounds... I'll totally check out T3. I promise.

For now, she's asked for help creating a gym routine and I'm going to go help her now.

04-06-2006, 03:38 PM	#1
Arghlita IMPC Contestant Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Northern VA Posts: 299 Recipes: 0 Rep Power: 6	GAH! Questionable personal trainer issue My best friend is getting married in November and she's trying to lose a little bit of weight. She's taking all the right steps of slowly cleaning up her diet and increasing her activity level. However, I'm talking to her on IM and I'm worried that her personal trainer is a moron. Although I may be completely wrong. In fact, I might be the moron. J. R.: what about bones? me: ... J. R.: also, what i'm saying is not that i don't have muscle. but muscle that goes unused develops integrated fat. me: J, "lean" mass is everything that isn't fat. Your bones don't gain weight just because you do. Nor do your internal organs. J. R.: no, but they shouldn't count toward your msucle mass either. me: ... But that's what "lean mass" is Bones, internal organs, water, muscle. Since you can't build up internal organs... If you gain lean mass, it is mostly muscle. You can gain bone mass, but only by aggressive lifting and supplementation. J. R.: the woman who did my training session (didn't go into detail but) did separate into fat, muscle, bone. me: ? She's a magician. Seriously, how? J. R.: i think what she more was saying was that some of my mass had to be accounted for by bone, etc. and therefore it wasn't posisble for me to have the body fat info she was getting. me: right Getting to over 50% is actually hard. J. R.: although she was doing my tricep, which is ALL fat. J. R.: at least where she was. when you weigh 330? me: Honey, I've talked to 400 and 500 pound people. It's damn hard to get to more than 50% fat unless you literally never move from bed. Your body - bones, muscles, organs, blood - has to be able to support the fat. I'm guessing you are in the low 40s. The skin fold calliper has a margin of error of 6% when done PERFECTLY. How many measurements did she take? If it was less than 5, she did a half assed job. 3 is mediocre 1 is criminal. J. R.: she measured a couple of times, but she was getting unbelievably high readings, so she told me to come back in a few days and have it redone, but i never did. me: Measured what though? Just your arm? Okay, the deal is that I realize some people who weigh 330 could be over 55% fat, but my friend JR is really active. Even after training for a half marathon, I have trouble keeping up with her on a "casual" stroll. We were roommates in college and J is just a big girl in every way. Not just fat, but BIG. Lots of everything. She grew up on a farm and did hard manual labor from before age 5. I find it hard to believe she has more body fat than people who outweigh her who can't climb a single flight of stairs without huffing and puffing. To clarify, I'm not saying that everyone who has ever weighed more than J is by necessity out of shape. But the women I have talked to who weigh more and have had body fat testing are nowhere near as firm and strong as she is. I think she could bench press an extended cab truck. So could I have said it better? Am I way off? J is a really smart girl, so I'm afraid that her confusion is the result of a combination of profound ambivelence towards her body and an incoherent personal trainer. Should the trained have tried measuring her in other places or not? :rock2:

04-06-2006, 04:13 PM	#2
EME Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 3,264 Recipes: 0 Rep Power: 51	Hi Arghlita, Skinfold caliper measurements of bodyfat can be done on anywhere from 3 to 9 points on the body. The most common methods are the 3 point and 7 point measurement. On women, the 3 point measurement should be done in these three places: Tricep, Suprailiac ( above the iliac crest between the hip bone and the lower rib ), Thigh. On women, the 7 point measurement should e done in these places: Chest Mid-Axillary Suprailiac Abdominal Thigh Subscapular Tricep There is an inherent problem with doing skin caliper measurements on really large people. It can simply be difficult to get a good, consistent measurement, especially if the person doing the caliper reading isn't skilled, or simply isn't good at it. A one point measurement is simply not an accurate measure of bodyfat. A three point measurement can give you a fairly accurate picture, but it still can be off by several %. I find that accurately measured three point readings are typically low by 2-3% on athletic individuals. A 7 point measurement is a much better indicator when done correctly. The key is that the results are only as good as the measurements, and if the measurements aren't good, neither is the result. Also, with regard to your question about LBM. Remember, LBM stands for Lean Body Mass, not Lean Body Muscle. You are correct that muscle is just one component in LBM. Bones, organs, etc... everthing that isn't fat, is LBM. So, when you measure bodyfat you are putting your caliper measurements into a formula that has been calculated to output fat % based on those measurements. When you subtract your amount of bodyfat from your total weight, you are left with LBM. Again, this is not an indicator of how much muscle you have, but an indicator of how much mass you have that is fat.. and how much you have that isn't fat. That's really all it tells you. As far as the actual % of bodyfat of your friend... it's unlikely that she is 50%. Over 32% is considered obese for women, and the result that was given to her was probably the result of an inaccurate or improperly done test. It's impossible for me to say that for sure, but if the trainer only measured in one location, it's safe to say that it was not an accurate estimate of her true bodyfat % Please let me know if you have any additional questions or problems. - EME __________________ PhysiqueFXonline - Online Nutrition and Training with Michael and Kendra Elias: www.PhysiqueFXonline.com www.MichaelandKendra.com My wife, and IFBB Fitness Pro Kendra Elias' personal site: www.KendraElias.com Proud member of Team ALR: www.ALRIndustries.com

04-07-2006, 12:05 AM	#4
ellipticer IronMass Sponsor Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 91 Recipes: 0 Rep Power: 3	Formulas based on statistical sampling will more often fail at the extremes. Meaning if the formulas were extrapolated during the 80's when there weren't as many obese people to measure, the numbers they use to give "50% body fat" are not very accurate because there weren't many people to sample at that size. Same thing for trying to caliper under 10%. __________________ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Win $50 in FREE SUPPLEMENTS just by writing a review: Bodybuilding Supplement Reviews =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-07-2006, 02:16 AM	#6
Arghlita IMPC Contestant Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Northern VA Posts: 299 Recipes: 0 Rep Power: 6	Grunt: I'm 5'5" and 225. According to a recent test, I have 36% BF. That means I have 144lbs of "lean body mass." And yet, when I weighed 150lbs I was not "ripped." Why? Because when you gain a bunch of fat like I did, you have to gain muscles that stabalize you when you walk/do every day movements. At 150, I was 24-27% fat, which is average. So while I did very little exercise other than walking between weighing that what I do now, I did gain a bunch of lean body mass simply from hauling my own, now larger butt around. (As an aside, last time I was this body mass I was 30 pounds lighter - and I wear only one size larger than I did then.) J is 5'11.5, so yes she basically is 6 feet tall. She has been overweight since childhood which means her bones were set wider at puberty which means that her bones are in fact "large." However, I have personally taken her measurements. I gained about 11 inches around my waist from gaining 100 pounds. She's 105 pounds heavier than me but only 7 inches larger in the waist - due to height and build. I wear a 20/22 - she wears a 22/24. When I tried on a dress for her wedding, they were handing us the same size. Yes, visually she is much bigger than me. But I don't believe that she has 19% more body fat than me. That's not computing with me. Yes, height makes a difference. 5.5 inches taller than me, and she wears the same size at times but is 20% more fat AND 100 pounds heavier? Also, her muscles are enormous - easily larger than people with 165lbs of lean mass. She is correct in assuming she has more intramuscular fat however this was a skin fold measurement so really, that shouldn't count.

04-07-2006, 05:09 AM	#8
Arghlita IMPC Contestant Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Northern VA Posts: 299 Recipes: 0 Rep Power: 6	Well grunt, here's the thing - when you are an obese woman you must have more muscle mass than a body builder half your weight in the same way that an obese man of 330 pounds has more lean mass than a 165lb man trying to gain muscle. Let's say both men pick up a 10lb dumbell. Mr. Big Pants is also lifting twice as much arm, so he's lifting more than someone half his size using the same dumbell. If I were to take a 165lb man and make him carry his same-size twin brother around, he'd have to gain some major muscles, don't you think? So if I was 36% BF at 197 when I was 13 years old (as tested by a doctor and a personal trainer and my freshman health class) I had 126lbs of lean mass before 12 years of exercise, including 4 years of military service. I doubt that it requires being a genetic "freak" to gain 18lbs of muscle in 12 years. (In the middle of that, I was down to 150 and 24%BF or 114lb muscle... even though I was on a diet and lifting heavy and you know, in the military doing PT.) But just so you know, yes I do have a beard because of a hormone imbalance that I've been fighting for 15 years (thanks!) so I may in fact be a genetic freak regardless :nosthumbs Why do I care? I was trying to lift my friend, JR, out of her depression and motivate her. It's hard to convince her to keep changing if, according to her trainer, she's making negative progress. She doesn't own a scale of her own because she'd have to special order, so the gym scale and BF testing are what she has to go on. I was trying to convince her that the trainer's estimate was way off. JR is new to training in a gym, and although she's no stranger to hard work she's confronting a major failure in her life (personal physical health). I'm trying everything in my power to motivate her and I wanted to make sure I was telling the truth. It seems like the jury is hung on this. I do thank you for your input, but overall I'm going to have to take it with a chunk of sodium.