Category Archives: socio-cultural

The Gym Is Not What It Used to Be. And Neither Are the People In It

There was a time when the gym was a pure place. A functional place. You went in, suffered, left. The weight machines were occupied by normal people doing normal things: lifting the weight, putting it down, moving on with their day.The stretching area was a low-ego sanctuary, where the post-menopausal women and men with questionable knees could collectively ignore one another while attempting to salvage some basic mobility.

That was ten years ago.

Now? Now the gym is a stage. It is a theatre of performative masculinity, a TikTok production set, a social experiment in misplaced confidence.

The Era of The Sub-Influencer

There is an insidious new species of gym-goer. You know the type. Not quite an influencer, not quite anonymous, just self-important enough to believe the world needs to see their Romanian deadlifts from three slightly different angles.

They do not train for anything, as such. They train for content. Their tripod is their training partner. You now have to navigate not just the people in the gym but also their carefully-curated camera angles, lest you accidentally wander into someone’s life-changing fitness transformation montage.

Their workouts too are a nonsense. Not a single compound movement in sight. Just an infinite sequence of variations, each with a brand-new wrist strap configuration.

And because they’re influencing, they’re not moving quickly.

Nobody Uses a Machine for Less Than 20 Minutes

There was a time when people would finish a set, wipe the bench, and fuck off. That time is gone. Now, a single incline bench is home to one man, his girlfriend, three resistance bands, a mini tripod, a protein shaker, and the ghosts of everyone else who once hoped to use it.

The three-set rule? Dead. What we have now is nine micro-sets, interspersed with two-minute reflection periods, a quick check of the pump in the mirror, and a series of deeply unsettling vocal self-affirmations.

Children. There Are Children Here.

3 PM.

Thursday.

This is not a time when schoolchildren should be anywhere but school.

And yet, they are here, occupying space, dressed like extras from a Love Island spin-off, attempting to bench weights they have no business even looking at. They should be in PE class, but it seems that PE class has relocated to Nuffield Health, Surbiton.

You watch two 19-year-old men in socks sparring in the functional training zone, boxing gloves on, common sense fully off. You make eye contact with a woman in her 50s trying to do some basic hip mobility exercises in the same area, and there is a mutual understanding. This place is no longer for us.

The Gym Is Now a Financial Illusion

One might assume that a gym with an entry fee north of £80 a month would filter out the worst excesses of the Gen Z energy drink economy. That it would be an enclave of working adults, former athletes, people with mortgage agreements, herbaceous borders and creaking joints.

It is not.

It turns out this Nuffield is part of the modern financial miracle, wherein a generation of people who claim they can’t afford rent somehow have active subscriptions to HelloFresh, Netflix, Gymshark, MyProtein, and a £17-per-day vape habit.

And Yet, I Still Go

I could leave. I could accept that this is no longer my world. That I have been phased out. That the gym, once a place of quiet suffering, is now an open-plan ego festival.

But I won’t.

Because I refuse to let a man in a Under Armour hoodie filming himself doing isometric curls be the reason I surrender my back mobility.

So I stretch, awkwardly, in the corner.

And I endure.

Because I was here first.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Look for the helpers

Some of you will change your profile photo, express solidarity, perhaps write something in French. Others might go somewhere French, light a candle. You might quietly blame policies, religions or individuals (rarely do we feel confident enough or sure enough to do it publicly). It’s your choice to do those things, it’s always heartfelt and I criticise none of it.

Those things don’t help me personally. This morning I’ve spent time looking at the photos and watching the footage as I have done time and time again in recent years after similar events to take comfort in the direct and immediate response of the helpers. The people rushing to assist, with scant consideration of the immediate perceived danger.

These people and my reflections of admiration for them are the only things that make me feel positive and hopeful. Even though I know I’ll never see an end to this carnage in my lifetime I do know that each time it happens I’ll always find more people helping.

What can VW USA tell us about drug cheats?

Another blog post I must caveat with ‘I don’t know a huge amount about this but’, I might have to invent an acronym that asserts this for all future posts. A sort of defensive skin to deflect the more obvious criticisms.

Well, let’s imagine a scenario. You build a product that can be used in an almost infinite number of ways by your customers. A car that can be driven fast or slow, in the city or on the open road for long journeys or short trips, for example. Now imagine that a well-meaning person decides that your car mustn’t be damaging to the world we live in and that it should be  low impact. They design a test that will prove if your car is low impact by picking one particular example of how it can be used and uses that as a benchmark. A set speed or sequence of speeds and a set duration. This protocol is widely publicised.

You know that your car has to undergo this test so you work night and day to make sure that when it’s being driven to those parameters it will pass the test. What this means is you focus in on your objective, my car must pass this test.

Which is not the same as ‘my car must be low impact on the environment’. Because the test is not representative of how the car would ever be used. It’s a formula designed to be repeatable and comparable with the cars your competitors make. It’s a scientific assessment, pure and simple.

Now, you’re no longer making cars, you’re making elite athletes. Once again you need to make sure your product is clean, that it compares favourable to the rest of the competition. You do this by submitting your athlete to tests. Scientific, repeatable tests performed under conditions you know will be consistent and repeatable. You focus your efforts on ensuring your athlete always passes those tests.

But your athlete doesn’t need to be clean all the time. When this test isn’t being performed the athlete can be as dirty as you like, you just need to ensure when it’s tested it avoids a positive test.

In both cases it’s easy to see that the burden has shifted. By making the test the thing you need to pass you dilute the purpose of the test in the first place, you lose sight of the desire that cars and athletes run clean. That regardless of when and how we assess them they will always be ethically sound.

VW, sports federations and coaches should clearly have the moral fortitude to see that the test is not ‘the thing’, the aspiration for a universally clean product is the objective, however, the testers and test setters have a far more significant role to play than many of us have so-far assumed.  Testers and regulators must design, facilitate and communicate assessment regimes that reflect a wider range of behaviours. A regime that communicates less about simple pass and fail but more about a universal, undeniable commitment to provable fairness, any time any where.

More cars and athletes will be shown to have done just enough to pass the test and we’ll admonish them for not being clean outside of those tests. We must at this time look hard on the people that let this scenario develop. Right now I don’t really think badly of VW for what they did, and by virtue of the fact that it did happen, neither did quite a lot of people at VW. The fact is they worked damn hard to build an engine algorithm that produced a fantastic efficient output under the laboratory test conditions. That the parameters didn’t represent real world usage was not their fight. So when a coach and an athlete conspire to beat a test, can we empathise and understand that it’s the test setters that have brought this situation about, albeit for very noble and ethically sound reasons?

I don’t have the answer, of course, but I hope the question itself is worth considering.

With thanks to Edward Borrini for inspiring the original thought.