Fitness Trainer Magazine

Fitness Trainer January/February 2017

Welcome to Fitness Trainer Magazine, a free digital publication written by trainers for trainers & everyone in between! Lose weight, improve your PT business & learn about health & fitness from top experts.

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 48 of 49

attempt to gain a monopolistic legal stranglehold on the field of nutrition; yet their efforts haven't been quite fruitful as AND is failing to win the hearts and legal minds of legislators. A perusal of the dietetic legislation reveals that dieticians have been provided with a legal scope of practice. This includes medical/allopathic therapy, and at times including "nutritional counseling". The words "nutritional advice" and "nutritional coaching" are absent in state/provincial laws and regulations. The Right to Coach and Counsel Trainers, it's the wild, wild west in the legal nutritional field. No one has a monopoly, we are writing on a clean legal slate. There appear to be very few laws and/or legal limitations/ restrictions on the practice of nutrition and nutritional coaching. There are some dietary and/or other laws/ regulations, which protect the use of certain words, titles, or the letters you can use after your name. However, for trainers, coaches, and fitness bloggers the American Constitutional Right to Free speech appears to trump the rights of dieticians, Dietetic Boards, allopathic doctors and everyone else. Keep in mind though, the protein bar can crumble a number of ways, which is why all trainers and coaches should verify the dietary laws and regulations of their state or province to confirm that there are no dietary restrictions to prevent the practice of nutrition/providing nutritional advice. In case of doubt- you are strongly recommended to consult your local friendly lawyer, who can provide you with a confirmation that you are on solid legal ground. Biting into legal precedents in the field of nutrition Serving by Serving, Case by Case Capati vs. Crunch Fitness International (2002) This case has NO probative value whatsoever in the legal field of nutrition and supplements. This Appellate judgment stands as a legal precedent to compel med- ical doctors, who scribble notes, to give testimony to explain their notes. The case was "allegedly" settled out of Court for 4 million dollars. As a legal precedent affecting personal trainers, nutrition, food, and supplements- this is the legal precedent that NEVER WAS… Ohio Bd of Dietetics vs. Brown (1993) In this case, the Court issued a court order (injunction) preventing the Defendant Brown from calling himself an "M.D." …the legal issue of "nutritional counselling" was legally obfuscated. Cooksey vs. M. Futrella et al. (2013) The North Carolina Board of Dietetics tried unsuccessfully to prevent Mr. Cooksey, the blogger Defendant from allegedly "practicing nutrition without a license". Mr. Cooksey won his case in the U.S. Federal Court. He successfully argued that under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, he had the legal right to free speech! Now- that's a legal precedent. Extrapolated and synthesized from "The Personal Trainer's Legal Bible" (revised and updated version to be available in early 2017) by Fitness & Sports Lawyer Gary W. Pitts.

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Fitness Trainer Magazine - Fitness Trainer January/February 2017