features
Letters: Write to reply
Do you have a strong opinion or disagree with somebody else’s views on the industry? If so, we’d love to hear from you – email: [email protected]
Functional training: A ‘push’ trend that needs a harder push
Rory McGown
MD and founder, GYMetrix
I was interested to read the recent article on investing in functional training (HCM NovDec 13, p49) as I believe functional training is a ‘push’ trend that isn’t being ‘pushed’ hard enough. The truth about operators’ return on investment in functional areas, based on our research, is that it’s not just very low but, in some instances, actually negative. Some of our clients’ gyms lost members because they removed equipment that customers valued and replaced it with functional kit that they hadn’t been taught to value.
GYMetrix measures functional equipment using sensors, and also records the number of people in these areas. In the overwhelming majority of gyms we’ve studied, the equipment – and functional areas as a whole – remain under-utilised.
We believe operators have underestimated the amount of education required, not only in terms of how to use the equipment but also how to persuade customers that it’s worth switching to functional training from their present training habits. Beware if you think changing customers’ habits is easy!
Functional also requires a lot of education on how to use it properly; while this may work for members who can afford PTs, it doesn’t work as well for normal members. Perhaps group training is the solution here?
So beware, functional training is a ‘push’ trend, and unless you systematically get instructors to push its benefits and educate customers, the return on investment will likely be low, and possibly negative.
Removing activity from QOF is a backward step
Suzanne Mee
Jump Start co-ordinator, GLL/Better
Regarding the recent decision to remove physical activity from the QOF (see HCM Jan 14, p5), I think this is a real shame and a missed opportunity by GPs and the current government. Prevention is an important part of GP services, as the success of smoking cessation services has shown. Now there’s no incentive for GPs to question patients about exercise levels, and less focus on prevention of disease.
Removing physical activity from the QOF takes us backwards and away from preventative care, which will only increase the amount of medication that needs to be handed out to patients in the future and therefore increase costs for the NHS overall.
As I currently work within the field of physical activity on referral within Tower Hamlets, I’m aware of the growing number of sedentary individuals who are referred with diabetes and other health issues. Many have no experience of exercise and would not have considered it without encouragement from the doctor and our services. The impact exercise has on them, and the difference it makes to their lives, can be outstanding and life-changing.
Categorising obesity as a disease won’t address causes
Vera Duman
Health and fitness coach
I was interested to read your recent article on classifying obesity as a disease (see HCM NovDec 13, p32).
In today’s world, we have a quick fix for everything. If we’re hungry, there’s fast food. If we’re ill or depressed, there’s a pill. We never recover naturally or try to find a reason why we’re feeling as we are, and doing what we do. We never deal with the actual problem.
If we categorise obesity as a disease, is that not just another wrong message sent out to the nation? We wouldn’t be addressing what causes people to become overweight. Are medical professionals unwilling or unable to deal with the cause of the problem, instead hoping for a new pill to treat obesity?
Meanwhile there are hundreds of fitness professionals who are passionate about people, and about changing real people’s lives: getting them off medication, promoting fat loss and getting them eating better.
I believe obese people should be referred to small businesses run by caring coaches. With obesity an issue particularly among lower social classes, why not create an affordable weekly drop-in programme focusing on exercise/nutrition education?
I agree that fitness qualifications are not regulated properly, but surely the investment required to do so would be significantly lower than the millions needed to develop a new wonder-drug. The problem is, promoting healthy eating and exercise will never make money; drugs and medication will.
But as far as I’m aware as a trainer, any change in life requires small, step-by-step actions. By creating a pill, we set people up for failure because they will never understand what made them obese in the first place.
Why do operators still insist on inductions?
Julia Rawlings
Business development expert
For many gym customers who regularly work away from their home club, the rigid operational procedures enforced by many gym operators can be frustrating.
On more than a dozen occasions I’ve tried to access gym facilities of leisure centres, to be told I can only use the gym if I have an induction.
In these times of trying to maximise income and encourage participation, I can’t understand this mindset. The main argument seems to relate to insurance and/or health and safety. However, I’ve consulted with Joe Ryan from RD Health & Safety who says: “It’s an operator’s duty to provide a safe environment for its customers, and this is done through providing quality staff, good equipment in working order, and appropriate instructional signage.” This doesn’t rule out non-members using a gym. Surely a quick demonstration by the potential user, and/or a membership card shown for their home gym – as well as signing a disclaimer – would get around any potential liability issues.
Operators need to prevent abuse, so the arrangement could be limited to users living a minimum distance away, with the maximum number of visits a year restricted. But a solution is needed. Could a ‘national fitness card’ be introduced? It could be a ukactive-led initiative with the card issued by the customer’s home club, even charging an annual fee for such a card. Alternatively, can operators allow staff to use common sense?
