Don Saladino with his clients Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively (left) and Magnus LygdbΓ€ck with his client Gal Gadot.
Courtesy of Don Saladino and Magnus LygdbΓ€ck
It can be tempting to follow extreme diets and workout regimes when trying to get fit and lose fat.
But personal trainers who work with celebrities advised making gradual but sustainable changes instead.
PTs whose clients include Ryan Reynolds said moderation and realistic goals lead to long-term success.
'Tis the season when people resolve to get fit, lose weight, and build muscle β only to quickly give up and make the same resolutions again a year later.
Four top personal trainers who work with both the general public and celebrities shared with Business Insider the biggest mistakes people make when trying to achieve their health goals.
They all feed into one central mistake: biting off more than you can chew.
Mistake 1: Trying quick fixes like fad diets
David Higgins, whose clients include Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling, said that trying quick fixes and going to extremes will "often lead to burnout, injury, or a cycle of frustration because they don't address the root causes of poor movement, nutrition, or lifestyle habits."
That includes following fad diets with unsustainable restrictions or exercising too much.
Higgins advised going back to basics: "Focus on movement quality rather than quantity, prioritize consistency over intensity, and remember that small, sustainable changes compound over time.
"Start with foundational habits, like improving your posture, breathing correctly, and incorporating whole foods into your diet. These simple shifts set the stage for long-term success."
Mistake 2: Trying to out-train a poor diet
And remember, said Magnus LygdbΓ€ck, whose clients include Alicia Vikander and Gal Gadot, you can't "out-train a poor diet."
Mistake 3: Setting unachievable goals then giving up when you inevitably fail
Luke Worthington, who has worked with Dakota Johnson and Naomi Campbell, said people also too often take an "all or nothing" approach to health and fitness. When they inevitably can't stick with their unrealistic new regime, they believe any slip-up has undone their good work and give up altogether, he added.
Instead, start with what's achievable for you, and don't copy a celebrity or athlete's plan, Worthington said. And it's OK if you can't fit in all your workouts one week or deviate from your nutrition goals sometimes.
"The most effective program is the one you actually follow, so setting realistic and sustainable goals is important," Worthington said.
Luke Worthington's clients include Dakota Johnson.
Luke Worthington
"I find that the 'sweet spot' for most goals is to commit to three full body workouts a week, and then stick to it all year round.
"This is enough to make consistent progress, but also not too much where it becomes impossible to fit into a 'normal' life," he said. "If those workouts are balanced, working all major muscle groups through all planes of motion, and progressive β meaning you are able to increase your workload over time β then you will get results."
That's better than doing six workouts a week for six weeks but stopping because it's too much or you've been injured.
Get fit and lose fat sustainably by finding what you enjoy, need, and would like to improve
Then, try to find a way to tick each box every week. For LygdbΓ€ck, that means a mixture of strength training, yoga and pilates, and Brazilian jiu-jitsu.
Don Saladino, whose clients include Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, called this approach the "moderation mindset," adding that taking time off to recharge and relax will prevent you from giving up after a few weeks. Consistency trumps intensity, he said.
Saladino gave the example of someone cutting down from drinking three days a week in 2024 to one in 2025.
"They just went from drinking 152 times throughout the year to 52," Saladino said. "Big improvement right there."
The overwhelming message was that these programs weren't enough to pay the bills. Retirees said they regretted not realizing this and not saving more to supplement their government checks.
BI followed up with several retirees and asked experts about the programs' performance and improvements they might need. Since most of the retirees rely on programs run by the federal government, the solutions discussed here mainly focus on the public sector. Others may have ideas for private or charitable solutions as well.
To be sure, many American retirees are doing just fine. Baby boomers have benefited from rising home and stock-market values over their lifetimes, and OECD data suggests the US's retirement system is doing well in some areas compared with those of other developed countries. Census data indicates roughly 11% of people 65 and older in the US lived inΒ poverty in 2023, down from about 25% in 1976.
Still, many people are struggling, and the pressures are only likely to grow as the population ages and funding wanes. Some argue that such trends increase the need to preserve or bolster government programs designed to reduce poverty among older adults.
We want to hear from you. Are you an older American with any life regrets you'd be comfortable sharing with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.
Americans increasingly rely on government checks like Social Security, and the program's funds are diminishing
Pamela Shields, 67, gets $1,470 a month in Social Security payments and an additional $600 from her jobs as a caregiver and a night-shift worker at her local grocery store. She had a long career in customer service and human resources, but she's dealt with unexpected medical expenses and two divorces, and she still provides her children with some financial support.
She said that Social Security wasn't enough to rely solely on and that she feared she wouldn't have enough to retire.
As with all beneficiaries, Shields' Social Security check amount is based on her earnings during her working years. But some major categories of spending β like housing, healthcare, and some utilities β have outpaced inflation in recent decades.
"I really want to be retired and not have to do all this stuff to make a living," Shields said. "But I don't see myself doing that."
Research from the bipartisan public-policy firm Economic Innovation Group suggests that US households like Wood's are increasingly reliant on government assistance like Social Security. EIG found that in 2022, Americans got an average of $11,500 in government payouts, representing 18% of the population's total personal income.
But Social Security may be in trouble, with payouts expected to start shrinking in the mid-2030s. As more baby boomers reach peak retirement age, the strain is expected to grow. Without a solution, they could be the last generation to receive full benefits.
"Social Security has been a very expensive program for a very long time, and it's more expensive particularly as we see upswells in the over-65 share of the population," said Benjamin Glasner, an economist at EIG.
One solution to extend the program's life is to start cutting benefits now. The US Government Accountability Office said in a report this summer that applying an across-the-board cut for all Social Security beneficiaries or cutting some spousal or widower benefits could increase longevity.
Of course, that would put people who are already struggling in an even tighter spot. Ultimately, Glasner said, the US needs more younger workers contributing to the Social Security fund through taxes. He argued that the US should invest more in helping people start and sustain families β the US's fertility rate hit a historic low this year.
"We will not be able to tax or cut our way out of this budgetary mess," he said. He also proposed consolidating various federal benefit programs, including Social Security, to reduce the administrative burden and reduce costs.
Another option is to turn up the nozzle on the program's funding sources: payroll taxes, interest on government securities, and taxes on benefits. Some Democrats, led by Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have proposed raising payroll taxes on higher earners to help offset the cost of hiking benefits for everyone.
Gopi Shah Goda, the director of the Retirement Security Project at the center-left think tank Brookings Institution, said the US could consider how other countries address retirement programs, including using general tax revenue, like Australia, and focusing expenditures more on lower-income retirees, like Canada.
Because Social Security is among the federal government's biggest expenditures, some legislators are looking for cost-cutting strategies. House Republicans have proposed raising the age at which Americans become eligible for benefits. President-elect Donald Trump has suggested cutting Social Security income taxes for retirees, which could provide immediate relief but further imperil future funding for the program by reducing tax revenue overall.
Andrew Biggs, a senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, has proposed capping monthly benefits at $2,050 beginning in 2033, arguing that this amount would keep more older Americans above the poverty line and keep benefits higher for longer than across-the-board cuts would when funding runs dry. This might mean smaller checks for higher earners, but he argued that Social Security is often inefficient for middle- and higher-income Americans because the safety net discourages them from working longer or saving more.
"Because of the taxes charged to fund those benefits, people tend to reduce their labor supply," Biggs said. "If I'm getting an extra $500 per month from Social Security, that's going to reduce the amount I save for retirement."
One way to help workers save more and extend the life of Social Security would be to increase access to employer-match 401(k)s at work. In a December fact sheet, AARP cited an estimate that 56 million Americans β the vast majority of whom earned less than $50,000 βΒ lacked access to retirement savings plans through their employer.
A handful of BI's survey respondents mentioned wishing they had 401(k) matching at work or jobs that provided financial guidance for retirement.
Still, retirees' average Social Security benefits are over 40% higher than they were in the 1970s when accounting for inflation. Participation in β and contributions to β retirement plans has increased since the 1970s. People are also claiming Social Security slightly later in life.
Researchers said that delaying taking Social Security could substantially improve people's retirement security, provided they have other income sources.
Some Medicare and private insurance plans hike premiums on older people or don't cover some needs
Older Americans told BI that medical emergencies, the need for long-term care, or expensive prescriptions eroded their savings. Whether they have private or government insurance, out-of-pocket costs add up. For those on a budget, affording healthcare and other essentials can be challenging, especially if medical conditions keep them from working.
Ronda Nichols, 60, worked as a paralegal, but her career ended when she slipped on ice in 2008. Her emergency savings weren't enough to cover her surgery, which, with aftercare costs, cost well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Nichols, whose Medicare premium is paid for by Idaho, lives on about $1,100 in disability and $300 from her late husband's pension each month, much of which goes toward prescriptions and over-the-counter pain medications.
"Economically this injury has really impacted me, because every month I think if my Social Security doesn't come I'm screwed," Nichols said.
About 68 million people are enrolled in Medicare, which is divided into traditional Medicare and private insurance overseen by Medicare, such as Medicare Advantage plans.
Dr. Joel Shalowitz, a specialist in geriatric medicine who formerly taught at Northwestern University, said older people could save money on health-insurance premiums if private policies and Medicare Advantage health plans were forbidden from steeply hiking rates for older beneficiaries, as some policies on the Affordable Care Act Marketplace are.
Plus, he said, if allΒ Medicare plans offered health savings accounts, older adults could build emergency funds for medical expenses and out-of-pocket costs.
Goda said many older Americans aren't aware that some Medicare plans don't cover long-term care, hearing aids, or dental care. "It's in a way impossible to know every possible outcome of what ailment you might have and how your health insurance will cover the resulting costs associated with that," Goda said.
She suggested that streamlining access to benefits and subsidizing services for people who need long-term care could improve the system. Goda added that an aging population doesn't always correspond to increased dependency. She argued that the US should invest in health throughout people's lives, citing research that childhood Medicaid eligibility for young people with disabilities was associated with higher employment and lower transfer-program costs decades later.
In a 2023 article, David Henderson, a research fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution, said that if Medicare cuts were to happen, Americans might value turning the program into a per capita benefit where each person receives a set amount to spend as they see fit and particularly sick people get double the allocation.
"Spending $900 billion on 65 million people would give each person $13,800," Henderson wrote. "The vast majority of people would value this $13,800 much more than they would value the amount that Medicare spent on their health care."
An outdated poverty line is preventing some older Americans from getting help
The poverty line, set at $15,060 annually for a single person, has been calculated nearly the same way since the 1960s, when housing was cheaper and groceries were a larger component of household budgets. Many government-assistance programs, like SNAP or Medicaid, base their eligibility criteria on this measure.
Older Americans told BI these programs didn't always provide enough aid to pay their bills. Mary and Steve Dacus, both in their late 60s in Robinson, Illinois, receive $23 in SNAP benefits and $2,140 in Social Security income a month. Mary previously told BI that she and her husband felt food insecure, and she called their limited SNAP allotment "pitiful."
Americans over 65 account for the largest increase in households classified as ALICE: asset-limited, income-constrained, employed. These Americans are still working and make too much to qualify for most government benefits but not enough to cover all their bills. Stephanie Hoopes, the national director of United For ALICE, said that removing complicated paperwork and verification steps could streamline applications for aid programs.
She said that raising the federal poverty threshold and expanding eligibility for government-assistance programs could also help many people access essentials. Of course, any safety-net expansion would have to be paid for by higher taxes or changes in state and federal budgets.
Hoopes added that benefits could be adjusted based on how inflation affects the costs of housing, childcare, food, transportation, healthcare, and technology, adding that this "would allow participants to keep up with the cost of their basic needs."
Still, changing the poverty line would most likely mean that government-assistance programs like SNAP would need more funding to operate, and it would increase the number of Americans considered to be in poverty β a politically unpopular move.
Are you an older American with any life regrets you'd be comfortable sharing with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.
Durelle, 30, told Business Insider that the married couple's goals felt too broad and left room for procrastination. Plus, having separate goals sometimes meant they weren't on the same page. While Durelle identifies as a saver, Samantha prioritizes spending money on travel.
Their careers inspired them to rethink how they set goals. Durelle, who is in the US Air Force, and Samantha, 30, who works as a recruitment marketing manager, saw how bigger organizations planned ahead with consistent cross-team meetings.
They realized that just like a corporation has multiple departments, their lives were also divided into categories like finance, travel, home, and professional advancement.
They held their first annual meeting in 2019, and have been hosting them every December since.
Durelle described it as a "game-changer." This year, they were able to hit their financial goal of collectively saving six figures. They also traveled more than they originally budgeted for, taking their dream trips to Greece, Switzerland, Italy, Nova Scotia, and Mexico while squeezing in smaller vacations.
They credit their end-of-year meetings. "Over the years, we've learned how to do them better," Durelle said.
They book a meeting room
Durelle and Samantha Bailey
The Baileys, who live in Washington, DC, always book a meeting room in a coworking space. It helps them get away from distractions at home, like their dogs. "It really locks us into what we're doing," Durelle said.
They each think of their goals a few weeks prior to the meeting. "We'll both take time to individually reflect on, 'Ok, what held us back this year? Were there some goals we didn't accomplish, and why?'" Samantha said.
Then they use the whiteboard to "brain dump everything we want out of the year ahead," she said, splitting the board into columns for different themes like "home" and "finance."
They bounce ideas off each other
As they share their ideas, they discuss them with each other before committing to real goals. Some goals needΒ to be more specific, and others might not be feasible for the year ahead.
Because they know each other so well, they can tell when the other person is setting a benchmark that's too high. Samantha gave the example of Durelle aspiring to read three times as many books as he had the past year. "We've learned to be realistic so that you don't set yourself up to be discouraged," she said.
It also helps them work through goals that might clash, like simultaneously saving money and spending it on travel.
Sitting down and looking at the bigger picture helps them prioritize where their money goes, allowing them to strike a balance.
Once they've decided on their goals, they transfer them to a shared spreadsheet with deadlines (such as a month or within a quarter) per goal. They also include drop-down options for status updates, like "in progress" and "completed." It helps them stay accountable.
The Baileys on one of their vacations in 2024.
Durelle and Samantha Bailey
The couple blocks off dates and locations they want to travel to in advance, so they can budget and properly schedule time off for vacations.
"Being more specific about it has helped make them a reality," Durelle said.
They check in throughout the year
In addition to the spreadsheet, the couple hosts "life meetings" every week in their home to check in on their progress. They use the time to update the spreadsheet and talk through any obstacles. They also hold larger monthly meetings "just to kind of continue strategizing and making sure we're on track," Samantha said.
While it requires effort and consistency, the couple enjoys the sessions. "Just have fun with it β it's not meant to be stressful," Durelle said. The point is to find more direction for the year.
The couple says the routine meetings have helped them grow in their marriage. The Baileys were married at 22 and lived "paycheck to paycheck," Samantha said.
"This has really taught us to be intentional about our lives," she said. "When you have a plan and you're realistic about your goals, you can achieve them."
