The gym industry in 2017 (and beyond...)

[madmax]

Nice article, Kyle.

As I currently manage one of these training gyms, I agree with a lot of your points in the article.

Perhaps I'm biased, but I still see the training gym as a large growth area, as people are slowly coming around to the idea to paying for results and outcomes, as opposed to paying for facilities. The race to go digital is very much a thing too, every man and his dog is developing a fitness app. Look at the F45 craze, they literally replaced instruction with TV's..

I think the main takeaway here is, you can be very successful if you do things right. I do think a lot of people thoroughly underestimate the amount of work running a training gym entails though!

[KyleSchuant]

Coming from this thread, since the topic of retention and adherence of men vs women is more for this thread.

You do understand that you’re being hand wavy just like Rip?

No, because Rip doesn't keep data of his signups, their attendance or results. He may have done so in the past, I don't know, but honestly he doesn't strike me as the type, I'd be surprised if he ever did more than glance across people's journals. Plus he throws out people who annoy him; adherence and retention numbers don't mean much if treating it like a club rather than a profit-making business.

If the globogyms have metrics regarding attendance, that would be somewhat interesting. Do they track classes as well? My suspicion is that most of the folks go to the gym to do LISS cardio and fuck around. They aren’t “training” by the definition of Rip.

Correct. Class attendance is very big, and tracks well with overall retention. At one point at a place I worked, we had 150 signups a month. About 50 of those new people took the "free" (actually paid for by their joining fee) appointments to get them started. Originally we had a big spreadsheet where each trainer recorded "John Smith, 35yo accountant, wants to lose weight, has bad back, first appointment Jan 5th, programme showthrough Jan 8th, review March 1st" etc, and twice a year they'd go through and check and see who was still members. So if 85% of Jen's people are still members and 45% of Kyle's, well then maybe Jen has something to teach Kyle?

12 months later, 40 of the 100 who didn't do the appointments were still members, and 40 of those who did the appointments; in other words, just talking to a trainer once or twice doubled retention.

We gave them programme cards with space for 18 workouts, which went into a filing cabinet, they'd pull them out when it came to their workout and fill in what they'd done. Less than 1 in 3 cards had any entry beyond the first which the trainer had written down. Of those with more than one entry, only 1 in 3 had more than a simple tick, ie they'd just repeated what they did the first time, if they pressed an 8kg dumbbell the first time they did it the 18th time, as well.

It's possible that some of those who didn't fill in their cards did actually do the programme, or at least repeated their original workout - but the number couldn't have been great. I know this because for at least 3 of the 4.5 years I worked in globogyms (2010 July to 2014 Nov) there were certain exercises which only I prescribed - goblet squats, barbell squats, and overhead presses - no other trainer prescribed them, and nobody came in and did them on their own; the last 18 months people started copying a bit, and some ex-crossfitters etc came in. But for 3 of the 4.5yr, I could easily spot anyone I'd given a programme to. So really not many beyond that 1 in 3 complied.

I tried filling in every 6th workout for them so they'd at least go from 8, to 9 and then to 10kg, but I found then they filled them in less than 1 in 3 times, ie adherence drops when you insist on progression.

So only about 1/3 of new members were given any programme, only 1/3 of them did the programme given more than once, and only 1/3 of them progressed the effort in any way. These are just rough numbers. Gender didn't make a difference to adherence, nor age, nor did certain programmes win out over others. Whether I tried all machines, all dumbbells, all barbells, or tried to adjust to my perception of the person's eagerness for challenge - it didn't make much difference, though there was a definite drop-off if it was all barbells, particularly the low-bar squat. 1-2 supervised sessions just wasn't enough for them to feel comfortable with it, vs 1-2 sessions learning the leg press or whatever.

We later moved to a computer system, which had lower participation than the card system. But it wasn't super-easy to use, people had to log in on a computer in the gym, which sometimes wasn't working, or someone else was waiting, etc. There was an "app", but it was just a link to a webpage.

When I went through the programme cards, and when we looked at the spreadsheets, and later the computer system, women had better adherence to gym workouts than men, and adherence led to retention - if you're following some sort of plan, you're more likely to still be a member in 12 months than if you're just doing random shit. But women were also overwhelmingly the people attending the group fitness classes. Some did only the classes, but a fair number - I want to say it was 20%, but I don't recall exactly, it definitely wasn't over half nor under a tenth - did gym stuff, too. Between gym, classes and the swimming pool, the people with the best retention used 2/3 - almost nobody used 3/3, just not enough time I suppose.

But as you note, it wasn't training - they just showed up and flapped around as the group instructor told them to.

So adherence at a globogym drops with barbells, and with insisting on progression. So once I'd given my notice I was leaving for my garage gym and said "fuck it" and gave everyone Starting Strength regardless of what they said, can you guess what happened? In fact, at least 4 of the 24 I gave it to quit the gym entirely, 2 of them making a formal complaint for which I received an official warning from the manager (legally, you get two verbal and one written warnings, the second written warning they can dismiss you; most workplaces confirm the verbal warning in writing to cover their arses). Gainz did not result, alas.

Because those who weren't compliant with the programmes we gave them didn't record what they did - I literally never once in four years saw anyone with a workout journal unless it was a client of mine working out on their own - we can't say the exact numbers or LISS vs HIIT vs weights etc. But various studies have shown that, left unsupervised, most people will go at 40-55% of 1RM. When I got people working out on their own on treadmills or bikes to measure their heart rate, it was rarely above 120bpm, and commonly down under 100bpm, which wouldn't help them unless they were 70yo or something. There were however usually 1-2 people in there at any time who'd be doing some sort of interval training, the scariest was running at 12+km/hr on the treadmill, then hopping on the side and letting the thing keep spinning while they did their rest interval; we got a fall each week from them.

I’m glad you’ve tracked your data. That’s excellent. How well does this extrapolate to other black iron gyms? You mention PTC does well with men and consistency. That’s a confounding result.

Yes, as I said, I believe culture is a big part of it.

Point being, when small gyms are considered in the context of strength training, a lot of data is needed to figure out compliance metrics and remove biases like the gym owner and training environment before a general statement like “women are better at DTFP than men”.

The SS journals study did say that women had 21 weeks of entries on average vs 14 for the men. But it didn't mention what they were doing.

wouldn't the women who go to a "black iron gym" be pretty narrowly self-selected and more likely to adhere?

Yes. But the same goes for the men. It's just space. Gyms tend to top out with a membership of 1 member per square metre (that's counting toilets, swimming pools and so on, too, everything except admin). People show up to a black iron gym more often than they show up to a globogym, which is still more than an unstaffed 24hr gym, but they use more gear and there are more instructors hanging around taking up space, too. Past that and you get the thing where you show up and can't find a free rack or treadmill or the class is already full, so you quit and go somewhere else. But there are not many 1,000m2 black iron gyms, the typical crossfit is 120-240m2. So a black iron gym just doesn't have many members. When you only need 100 people to fill the place, that it only appeals to 1% (or whatever) of the population doesn't matter.

In my place, I get roughly 50-50 enquiries from men and women. However, the men's enquiries are almost all through the website: someone googled "starting strength melbourne" and there we were. The women are mostly referrals, a current or former member tells them to come, so they do. Of those who enquire, about 2/3 show up and try it out; of those who show up and try it out, about 2/3 sign up. But the guys don't tend to last, and the women do.

The interest among women is out there. I think how you present yourself is key. My Sydney coach friend - Trent at PTC Sydney - who advised me to give the men their own individual programmes, rather than just 3 sets of 5, he had an issue with too much success competitively - he said the newbie women came in, saw "200kg" on the record board, and walked right out. Thomas Plummer said that if you have a guy who lose 150lbs, don't use him in your advertising! It's too much, it's a whole person. Use the guy who lost 10lbs. So I said, yes, put up on your FB feed the woman who squatted 200kg - but also put in the guy who comes in on day one and you have to start him with dumbbell squats to a box, and 6 weeks later he's squatting 60kg.

He took my advice and said he made another $2,500 a month from that. I didn't get a commission, sadly. Reminds me of when I was in school and I helped other kids with their maths homework, and they ended up getting better marks than me on the test. Anyway...

Many black iron gyms advertise themselves using an obese bald guy with no neck, a goatee, screaming before he unracks 300kg from a monolift. Not many women will go to that place, still less older people, that demographic we discussed earlier in this thread. If you want everybody in your gym, then you have to show everybody there, not just the fat screaming bald guy bending the bar while Pantera plays. Compare the feeds of Westminster S&C and The Australian Strength Coach, and it's not hard to see why Bryant trains a lot of women and older folk, and Oreb doesn't.

I think women's appetite for effective training is left unsatisfied by much of what our culture offers them. Anyone who's trained women has known the experience of telling a woman to eat, telling her that yes, she can pull this weight - and it's like you've given them permission to live. Most of that "empowerment" stuff is just words, this isn't. They respond to that. They go from worrying about the weight on the scales to the weight on the bar. Sure, it's a minority of women - but it's a minority of men, too. It's certainly enough to make a small business out of, if you do it right and don't chase them away with your advertising.

There's an old racist joke that, apart from the racist word, is also anti-racist. "How do you stop a n- from drowning? Take your foot off his neck." It's the same for many things, I think. Just stop holding the person down and they'll rise up. I had a colleague who used to do the gym intros for the young women, they'd try to book her in with them. I'd hear her in the next cubicle saying, "And I'll put some weights in your programme - don't worry, you won't bulk up!" Well, she wasn't worried... until now. Just put the weights in her programme, show her how to do it, and encourage her. Leave it up to her to accept or reject. Take your foot off her neck.

Women and older folk will come, all you have to do is not actively exclude them. So when you look at these gyms, you do see that they promote themselves in different ways. And so then their retention and adherence among various demographics make a bit more sense. Our experience is that if you do not actively exclude them, as many women as men will come, and the women will last longer in training. Older folk will come, too, but their adherence isn't great - they just have more shit to deal with in their lives and medically.

[KyleSchuant]

From the Exodus novice thread.

KyleSchuant, it sounds like people who program for beginners for money need to mostly be concerned with retention.

Have you considered adding fun conditioning stuff like battle ropes and bag work?

They pay me for three months. I had one guy who quit 15 minutes into his third session - he had to work in with someone, I think he'd thought it'd be one-on-one personal training. So really he paid like $250 a session. That was good money, give me ten more like him. Short-term, it's actually better to sign them up then chase them away somehow.

Seriously though, we want retention because if they don't stick around they don't get results. That's why I try to minimise missed reps and resets, as well as grinding, in the first 3 months. I'd rather have 10 guys squat 100kg in their first 3 months than 2 guys squat 140kg and the other 8 quit, then they can all get 140kg 3 months after that. Such is the theory, anyway.

I've offered that sort of conditioning stuff but mostly they're not interested. Boxing pad and mitts sit unused above the lockers. During the summer, Tuesday and Thursday nights we had a running group which went after the gym closed at 9pm. We had a few regulars but all the others who expressed interest "had to get home" and so on. It'd really only work if I put it in the middle of their sessions or something. I'm most fond of the prowler, but on our asphalt driveway the sound would be horrendous, and we can't annoy the neighbours. I think this sort of stuff is useful, but people just don't like doing it.

I have thought of just making two regular strength sessions a week (Sun/Thu) and having the Tuesday be conditioning & mixup day, like messing with sandbags or something. But I'd probably just do that for people in their second and subsequent three month terms. I do believe a strength base is needed for most, first.

[Monoides]

@KyleSchuant The compliance difference between men and women is very interesting, but it does make a lot of sense.

What'd be interesting to see is whether or not you could grow compliance among men by grouping lifters at a similar level together and encouraging them to compete against each other. Nothing serious, just people at a similar level test each other out. Spitballing this because of experiences as a volunteer rowing coach that sort of mirror yours in lifting. We'd have a bunch of people show up to try out at the beginning of every season. Many would be gone within a couple of weeks, but once we managed to sort semi-regular crews out, they tended to stick around.

What was interesting was the guys tended to all maintain a friendly competition on tests etc within their own boat, but not really with the other boats. The club itself didn't really do anything to encourage this, it just sort of happened on its own. With the girls, there were a handful who were very competitive with everyone, but the majority didn't have that kind of thing going on at all. And similarly, we saw men dropping in and out quite frequently across most boats, while if the women kept at it for more than a month or two, they'd probably stick around forever.

It'd also be interesting to see what the data's like on retention/compliance with coaches who regularly take their novice lifters to meets. It'd also be interesting to see how much this softens the 'men are snowflakes' effect.

(We saw a similar effect to begin with with guys vs girls in rowing - EVERY SINGLE NOVICE MAN I coached had at least 7098285 injuries/congenital deformities which they'd mention within .0003 seconds of sitting on the erg. I'll admit that I actually did this as well when I started too. For the most part, the women just did what you asked them to as long as it wasn't completely insane. But the snowflaking from the guys tended to go away quickly once there was a race on the horizon and we'd given them a clear idea of what they'd need to do to stand a chance of winning.)

[KyleSchuant]

That's very interesting that it's the same in rowing. I think what's happening is that before they've even touched an oar or barbell, the guys are already competing - and they're preparing ahead with excuses for why they might not win.

I think having them start together is an excellent idea, Monoides. If I had my way, the gym would be arranged like university, with terms, 12 weeks with a week off in between, something like,

- Autumn - Fresh strength, novice progression for newbs, mini-novice progression for experienced lifters
- Winter - Bulk strength, HLM or DUP or whatever with the aim of putting on a few kg of size to help lifting
- Spring - Quick strength, weightlifting focus, or for those too old or clumsy to do it, a lean-out minimising loss of strength
- Summer - ideally, some other sport, leaving aside barbells for three months. If not that, then maintaining strength while working on cardiovascular fitness.

Then people would start together, preferably in autumn. Whatever time of year they started they'd do a "fresh strength" cycle, but after that they'd follow with everyone else. As an aside, I believe this is what people should do with their own sports, except that instead of 3 terms of barbells and then a term of something else, it's 3 terms of the sport and then a term of barbells. Back in ye olden days this is what people did - and they had 95% of the performance our current year-round-do-nothing-but-the-sport people do, but far, far less injuries and athlete mental burnout.

However, I only have a double garage. Membership goes as low as 14 and tops out at 24 (about 1 in 6 of these are not showing up at all at any time, so active membership goes from 12 to 20). This means that (not checking figures, just off the top of my head) I have on average 1-2 people start each month - usually less in summer and more in winter. If I said, "wait till the term starts" they'd just go somewhere else. So it's inevitable they start in dribs and drabs and as individuals. The best I've thought of is the leaderboard - their lifts as a percentage of the world record for their weight, age and gender. Obviously I welcome other ideas.

But if you had a gym of 100-150 like a decent Crossfit, that'd be 5-10 starting each month, and you could put them off for a month or two and have them start in groups. I'd prefer people thought of this as like a university degree: you have instruction, you have classes to go to, homework to do, and there's a structured progression through the terms and years, and it does take years to get good.

On that last point, I can't tell you how many lifters I know of who've gone to a single competition, placed 6th or something, then never gone again. I even met one trainer who looked up national records before deciding whether to sign up, and when he realised he wasn't even at half of them, didn't bother. Men and women both do this, most lifters do 1-2 meets and are never seen again. I'd rather they have the mindset of a first year uni student, who doesn't expect to be able to do a PhD today.

For me, it's something to try when I get a bigger place.

[KyleSchuant]

Question for the gym owners: social media? How's it working for you?

Most of the advice we get about these things comes from people saying, "I've never had a trainer and I never would, but if I did then -" and we hear something about how the gym owner has to squat 600lbs and have sixpack abs or something - and it's always males, of course, who as well as being special snowflakes who are barely intermediate but still have opinions on training long-term, are also experts in businesses they've never given custom to, let alone run. And trainers with two years of bootcamps behind them are running marketing courses.

With social media, all I do is put up vids and pictures of them lifting, and make fun of them a bit. This has worked well for keeping current clients as their friends congratulate them and so on, but hasn't got me any new ones, who just come from the website or referrals. That's enough for now but it's always good to know how to do better. So, people who have experience in making social media (or anything else) work in getting and keeping clients, what approaches have you used?

[KyleSchuant]

From this thread,

I don't know how well this actually works in real life, but Rip's idea of using the NLP and the added weight on the bar to get potential clients interested in barbell training sounded like a pretty cool concept. [...]

So maybe over 10 years ago barbell training as a profitable model of fitness training was a bigger deal than it is nowadays?

It's more the "point of difference" thing, I think. If someone comes to gym A, how is it different to gym B? And he lays it out in the "incremental increases" article: at gym A, you get taught a few basic movements and given a plan to progress them, at gym B you get given a brochure of aerobics class times and you muddle through various machines and things on your own.

In terms of member retention, while actually being taught movements and given a plan is important, probably the more important thing is just talking to a trainer. I've probably mentioned before that at the globogym we gave people "free" (really paid for by their joining fee) appointments to get them started; about 1/3 did these appointments, while 2/3 said, "I'll be alright on my own." 12 month retention was 80% vs 40% for these groups. And it wasn't programming because most trainers didn't give them much, and anyway most people didn't follow the programmes they were given. It was just having talked to someone in the gym who reassured them and made them feel comfortable in the place.

Obviously I think barbells movements properly-performed and progressed are optimal for most people's goals, at least for the first 6 months or so. But in terms of retention, that initial trainer-member conversation is probably a bigger factor. Nonetheless, your gym having a "point of difference" is a factor. A black iron gym like WFAC doesn't stand out as much as it used to, and honestly this is a good thing.

[damufunman]

From this thread,

I don't know how well this actually works in real life, but Rip's idea of using the NLP and the added weight on the bar to get potential clients interested in barbell training sounded like a pretty cool concept. [...]

So maybe over 10 years ago barbell training as a profitable model of fitness training was a bigger deal than it is nowadays?

It's more the "point of difference" thing, I think. If someone comes to gym A, how is it different to gym B? And he lays it out in the "incremental increases" article: at gym A, you get taught a few basic movements and given a plan to progress them, at gym B you get given a brochure of aerobics class times and you muddle through various machines and things on your own.

In terms of member retention, while actually being taught movements and given a plan is important, probably the more important thing is just talking to a trainer. I've probably mentioned before that at the globogym we gave people "free" (really paid for by their joining fee) appointments to get them started; about 1/3 did these appointments, while 2/3 said, "I'll be alright on my own." 12 month retention was 80% vs 40% for these groups. And it wasn't programming because most trainers didn't give them much, and anyway most people didn't follow the programmes they were given. It was just having talked to someone in the gym who reassured them and made them feel comfortable in the place.

Obviously I think barbells movements properly-performed and progressed are optimal for most people's goals, at least for the first 6 months or so. But in terms of retention, that initial trainer-member conversation is probably a bigger factor. Nonetheless, your gym having a "point of difference" is a factor. A black iron gym like WFAC doesn't stand out as much as it used to, and honestly this is a good thing.

I'd be careful making the statement that the initial trainer-member conversation is THE reason they stuck with it. It's possible the people that would've stuck with it anyways were the ones that signed up for the free session.

[KyleSchuant]

Yes, there's certainly a filtering effect, the sort of people who sign up for advice are the sort who are more likely to stick with the gym generally. It's like how in my gym, those who enquire after finding us through the website are more likely to sign up than those who find us through an ad; the first lot were looking for a place like this, the second lot stumbled across us.

But it's not either/or. Changes in how front desk handles new members - the "script" - changed how many of them did the appointments, eg "I'll book in a time for you, when would you like?" vs "Would you like help to get you started?" and it was found that the retention effects remained, ie about 80% for people doing the appointments vs 40%. Though the data's not as strong here because most gyms in Australia aren't good at consistent scripts etc.

However, we have other data. We know that people who do the group classes are much more likely to still be members in 12 months. And when surveys of members are done, including exit surveys, we know that a single interaction - "Hi Bob, how are you? Working hard, good to see!" - between trainer and member means the member is 25% less likely to quit next month.

We also know from observation that people stick with personal training, group classes and so on for a long time despite openly saying they're not getting any further results.

The social interactions aren't the factor, but they are the dominant factor. This means that the primary skill of being a trainer or coach is getting them to show up. Now obviously other skills will influence this, since most people do eventually quit if they're not getting results.

[quark]

We also know from observation that people stick with personal training, group classes and so on for a long time despite openly saying they're not getting any further results.

People stick with all sorts of things for a long time despite not getting value. Inertia is a very powerful force. That's one reason businesses on a subscription model put a lot of effort into getting people to sign up, even if it means giving a massive discount for the initial period, such as: first month free, just give us your credit card number for auto-renewal.

[Monoides]

That's standard operating procedure for most gyms but what Kyle's describing is a subtly distinct phenomenon from simply not-being-bothered to cancel your direct debits or getting locked into a 120000 month contract.

It's escalation of commitment. Basically, a person who's spoken to a trainer has already made a commitment in some small way. We like our actions in the present to align with our actions in the past, so the act of interacting with a trainer by talking to them makes us much more likely to interact with them again by having a session with them, and so on. Prior commitments 'stack' and make us more and more likely to do similar things in the future. It's not exactly inertia, it's more like a form of self-justification

Successful retailers have basically weaponised this impulse with offers - 'Oh, you want a kilo of whey? Buy five and we'll give you 20% off.' They get more of your money, you get to justify a bigger purchase of something you'd already made the decision to buy anyway.

The social dynamic of a trainer and your classmates being people adds another couple of powerful factors into it - we like to identify ourselves with groups, and we don't like to disappoint people. I suspect that the most successful trainers/coaches are the ones that can maintain that tension in the relationship - being friendly, responsive, accommodating... while still remaining a person the trainee doesn't want to disappoint.

[KyleSchuant]

That's very insightful, Monoides, very well put. I have to think on that some more but that last bit is very quotable.

[Monoides]

If you'd like more platitudes disguised as insight, get in touch. I'm in advertising by trade, and I'd be interested to know which aspects of retail/shopper marketing have already been adopted by gyms and which haven't. I suspect the big globos probably do some of it given that very similar people are probably in charge at the top, but I'd also imagine it's very difficult to enforce or monitor at the franchise level.

[KyleSchuant]

You'd be surprised how little most gyms do, at least here in Australia. Most don't go beyond the "New Year! no joining fee!", honestly.

[MattNeilsen]

If you'd like more platitudes disguised as insight, get in touch. I'm in advertising by trade, and I'd be interested to know which aspects of retail/shopper marketing have already been adopted by gyms and which haven't. I suspect the big globos probably do some of it given that very similar people are probably in charge at the top, but I'd also imagine it's very difficult to enforce or monitor at the franchise level.

Have you read Influence by Robert Cialdini? That's one of my favorite books on the psychology of persuasion/influence, and it aligns nicely with your previous post. I've worked in B2C and B2B sales for the past 7 years so I'm a nerd about this stuff as well. That and I also work for the largest privately held gym in the US - we could certainly nerd out more

[KyleSchuant]

From a fitness forum,

"So I have my first interview for a managers position at a local gym! I have my cert 3 in fitness and am studying my bachelor of clinical exercise physiology! Any tips? I’m so excited I can’t wait!!!"
"Do you have experience training people? Or in sales?"
"Not in training people but I’ve worked in hospitality my entire life."
"So let's turn it around: if someone came from working training people their whole lives and then was interviewing for a restaurant manager position..."
"I would tell them to be calm and confident.

I believe this exchange explains much about the fitness industry.

[KyleSchuant]

The recent incident where a young guy deadlifting was assaulted by a gym member in a gym in Quebec is actually a good example of changes in the gym industry.

Like many mainstream gyms, Buzzfit originally had few or no barbells etc, and lost members to training gyms like Crossfit. In response, they've put in the gear. But as I've said before, the appeal of the training gym is not merely the gear, which after all can be bought fairly cheaply. It's the culture, the instruction and the community.

Mainstream gyms are unable to offer the instruction of training gyms. With the fitness industry having a low barrier to entry and being mostly part-time casual work, there just won't be a lot of competent gym instructors out there, not enough for all the thousands of gyms - most will eventually go to the training gyms.

Mainstream gyms also can't offer the community of training gyms, they're just too big. It's hard to have community with 3,000 members, much easier with 100. There will be little cliques in a mainstream gym, but it's not quite the same.

That leaves culture. What is the purpose of the place, what behaviour is acceptable or expected? This is developed by everything, from the founding members through to the music. But most important is the management's example. This is where a mainstream gym really struggles. They bring in the barbells but nobody knows how to use them, and most members are scared of them. And with 3,000 people there'll always be somebody who complains about... well, anything. A mainstream gym will try to respond to every complaint and pacify them.

So in this instance, members had complained about the kid making noise while deadlifting. They spoke to him and compromised by having him use mats under the bar. No doubt they would, as my old globogym did, report back to the complaining members on what they'd done. "We spoke to him about that and... we hope you are happy with the result." This creates a culture of entitlement and complaint. The complaining gym members feel that they should and do have control over what happens in the gym.

And so you get a gym member walking up to a kid and kicking the bar out of his hands. In this case, the offending member has been banned and the kid is pressing charges. But this incident is not unique, as I've mentioned a similar incident in 2014 with cleans being dropped (with bumpers) led to my losing several clients and setting up my own garage gym. And this sort of thing will happen again and again in mainstream gyms, because of the culture of entitlement and complaint they've created.

This toxic culture is inevitable during times of change. A "judgment-free zone" leads to a lot of judgment, and people being escorted out by the police. This is mainstream gyms' failed attempts to appeal both to the hardcore trainees and the mainstream.

And of course, their reduced revenue is because of their failed attempt to appeal to the cheaparses who never go. Really they need to focus on the middle 2/3 of the population. There are plenty of them.

These sorts of incidents are ultimately a great example of the chaos unleashed on the gym industry by the rise of 24hr gyms and Crossfit, and how mainstream gyms are failing to deal with it all.

[KyleSchuant]

You know, rehab of old injuries is going to be a growing niche of the fitness industry, I think.

http://time.com/4913687/how-kids-sports ... -industry/

[Allentown]

You know, rehab of old injuries is going to be a growing niche of the fitness industry, I think.

http://time.com/4913687/how-kids-sports ... -industry/

Related-
Coworker was just talking to another coworker at the next desk over about his HS kid who just had ACL repair from football.

[KyleSchuant]

Yes. And this kid will have problems with that knee for the rest of his life, whether he's sedentary or active. Physiotherapy and guided training will be necessary; if he chooses not to bother with those things, then further surgeries will be necessary. Along with the ageing of the population in the Western world, this makes rehab work a growing niche of the industry.