Anyone feel in terms of results the gym is overrated?

completedit

Probably looked as fit as I ever have in the past year going on daily 10k walks and doing a few bodyweight exercises once or twice a week.

I honestly think the fitness industry has everyone fooled that they need to lift dumbells to have a good workout.

Depends on what you're looking for.

If it's just to lose weight then walking or running can take care of that. If you want to get ripped you probably need a gym membership or to buy a few weights, bench, pull up bar, etc.,...

o1s1n

People should really try to lose weight by walking in the evenings before committing to a gym membership alright.

If you can't stick to walking X times a week theres no way you'll be hitting the gym on a regular basis.

I think for a lot of folks, just having the membership is seen as a bit of a fitness commitment on some level.

timeToLive

A base level of fitness can be achieved by diet, walking, running, home workouts.

If you wish to build real strength you will need a gym. Deadlifting, benching and squatting heavy can't be replicated by other things.

Trampas

o1s1n wrote: »

People should really try to lose weight by walking in the evenings before committing to a gym membership alright.

If you can't stick to walking X times a week theres no way you'll be hitting the gym on a regular basis.

I think for a lot of folks, just having the membership is seen as a bit of a fitness commitment on some level.

Majority of people who want to lose weight could be done by changing what they eat. Exercise can help but what we put in our mouths will make the bigger and longer benefits.

markmoto

Actually you can lose weight seating all day long on a sofa.

atilladehun

The general fitness market has always been flooded with VHS/dvd/YouTubes or infomercial gadgets or mega gyms or tunic gyms. People will always try to spend money on themselves and it's easy to sell the idea of improve yourself.

You're right, if you're disciplined and educated about your diet and activity and in general good health then it's possible to maintain a decent shape.

If you've got pain issues you need correcting or you're interested in muscle building, Olympic lifting, strength development or you need someone to tell you what to do or you enjoy a class or you like the convenience then a gym might be for you.

Dtp1979

markmoto wrote: »

Actually you can lose weight seating all day long on a sofa.

Yes, if you are in a calorie deficit.

TheAnalyst_

Walking does sweet **** all for your body and fitness.

KaneToad

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

Walking does sweet **** all for your body and fitness.

I couldn't disagree more

TheAnalyst_

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

Walking does sweet **** all for your body and fitness.

Silly post of the year award, there, in my opinion.

Dtp1979

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

Walking does sweet **** all for your body and fitness.

That’s a pretty stupid statement tbh.
Will walking build big biceps, no. But there’s numerous benefits to walking for all types of people.

TheAnalyst_

Delude yourself all you want. What does it actually go for your physique ? No stress on your CV system unless your massively unfit.

Essentially good for your mental health and the small amount of calories you might use up.

ancapailldorcha

completedit wrote: »

Probably looked as fit as I ever have in the past year going on daily 10k walks and doing a few bodyweight exercises once or twice a week.

I honestly think the fitness industry has everyone fooled that they need to lift dumbells to have a good workout.

I disagree.

I've lost weight with no more effort than eating less junk food. Nearly 15kg at one point.

I'm finally going to the gym regularly and have somehow put on weight without changing my diet at all except reducing the sweets and snacks a bit so no idea what's happened there.

I think what got me going was the idea of working out helping with stress and anxiety and on that front, I feel much better so I'm quite happy with the gym.

Cill94

Overrated for fat loss? Definitely.

Overrated for actually getting bigger and stronger? Nah. Think everybody who gave the lockdown bodyweight-only training a good go realised its many shortcomings.

Mr. CooL ICE

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

Delude yourself all you want. What does it actually go for your physique ? No stress on your CV system unless your massively unfit.

Essentially good for your mental health and the small amount of calories you might use up.

Lets see...

1) It's good for your general cardiovascular health
2) It can be great as active recovery for difficult gym sessions - blood flowing between sessions makes those sessions easier
3) Easy on the joints
4) It's extra calories burned - if you are aiming to cut a certain bodyfat %, adding walking to your existing gym routine will burn more calories. No brainer really

How about you tell us why it does "sweet **** all"?

TheAnalyst_

1. Not really
2. Not really
3. So is sitting down
4. Two less biscuits will do the same job.

Walking is not sufficient exercise. It is not moderately strenuous and has no effect on muscular development or maintenance.

Go for a walk and see where your heart rate measures on a training chart.

ancapailldorcha

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

1. Not really
2. Not really
3. So is sitting down
4. Two less biscuits will do the same job.

Walking is not sufficient exercise. It is not moderately strenuous and has no effect on muscular development or maintenance.

Go for a walk and see where your heart rate measures on a training chart.

Saying "not really" is nonsense. It'd be nice if you could present some sort of view.

Cill94

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

1. Not really
2. Not really
3. So is sitting down
4. Two less biscuits will do the same job.

Walking is not sufficient exercise. It is not moderately strenuous and has no effect on muscular development or maintenance.

Go for a walk and see where your heart rate measures on a training chart.

People who walk a lot have better health. In some studies, better than people who train hard for a few hours a week but are sedentary the rest of the time.

Danzy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree.

I've lost weight with no more effort than eating less junk food. Nearly 15kg at one point.

I'm finally going to the gym regularly and have somehow put on weight without changing my diet at all except reducing the sweets and snacks a bit so no idea what's happened there.

I think what got me going was the idea of working out helping with stress and anxiety and on that front, I feel much better so I'm quite happy with the gym.

Muscle is heavier than fat.

People often lean up and weigh more

ancapailldorcha

Danzy wrote: »

Muscle is heavier than fat.

People often lean up and weigh more

I did not see that coming.

TheAnalyst_

Cill94 wrote: »

People who walk a lot have better health. In some studies, better than people who train hard for a few hours a week but are sedentary the rest of the time.

Yes health but this is the fitness forum.

Black Sheep

The fact that walking is low intensity, low stress is one of the reasons it is potential useful to someone who lifts or does other more high intensity training if they want to burn a few more calories without risking over training or more impact on joints. Or they might want to just do something active without compromising the rest of their training. The inoffensive nature of walking is kind of its niche.

Depending on how briskly you walk and whether it's on a incline is going to dictate whether it's a negligible amount of calories burned or something more substantial, but if you're walking several times a week it adds up. It's not uncommon for people with physique goals to throw in morning walks while fasted.

Benefits like stress relief have a subject element but the restorative benefit of increased blood flow is real.

Stuart McGill also has cited research that some low back pain sufferers can obtain relief from brisk walking. I don't have it in front of me but the swinging arm movement seems to be part of why.

As for the name of the forum... Fitness isn't always about death or glory training, sometimes it's a lot more modest, because some people need to start somewhere and it might be at the very bottom. Sometimes fitness is about small improvements or little habits that, over time, amount to something more significant, and are the way markers in people's journeys from sedentary to fit.

Mr. CooL ICE

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

1. Not really
2. Not really
3. So is sitting down
4. Two less biscuits will do the same job.

Walking is not sufficient exercise. It is not moderately strenuous and has no effect on muscular development or maintenance.

Go for a walk and see where your heart rate measures on a training chart.

So - "do your own research"? Ok then

FlubberJones

I walked LOADS in the lockdown and also did countless Tabata / HIIT sessions... gym opens, HIIT etc. is out the window and the weights are back in the frame taking over completely... But I still walk. It feels relaxing on the joints good to get fresh air and possibly a benefit to my overall fitness.

silverharp

Longevity is one area where the gym can be great if you take a life long view of it, once you get to your 50's you are in the use it or lose it category. So while you could spend a grand or two and replicate a lot at home, the variety of equipment and space in a gym is just convenient.
The gym is perfect for intense low impact cardio, bikes, rowers etc. then there is the whole mobility side to fitness, you will be more disciplined about it once you know going to the gym 3 or 4 times a week is part of your routine and something you look forward to it.

Cill94

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

Yes health but this is the fitness forum.

I’m not advocating for people to do walking only. People should be training and walking.

TheAnalyst_

That’s the main point of the thread.

ThunbergsAreGo

10km a day is a serious time commitment!

I have no doubt the OP is seeing serious results walking approx 14 hours or 70km a week, its simple calories in calories out.

Love a good walk myself!

completedit

It might seem like I'm being a bit flippant in the OP but I genuinely feel my body composition is better now. Maybe I get too puffy and stocky from the gym and by just walking, running and doing some BW stuff, my body looks better less bulky since I'm short. If I was over 6 foot there's no way I'd have this opinion.

TheAnalyst_

Has your weight changed? Whats your BMI now if I can ask.

Black Sheep

completedit wrote: »

It might seem like I'm being a bit flippant in the OP but I genuinely feel my body composition is better now. Maybe I get too puffy and stocky from the gym and by just walking, running and doing some BW stuff, my body looks better less bulky since I'm short. If I was over 6 foot there's no way I'd have this opinion.

What the guys said in this thread is that for certain things the equipment in a gym lends itself to particular goals. Without access to a barbell and rack it's very hard to get really stronger in absolute terms and progress in measurable increments. I would say as well that if someone was really focused on hypertrophy then a commercial gym offers a lot of machines, dumbbells and specialist equipment that can really help.

But... Someone could do a program based on a mixture of runs, high intensity circuits and body weight training and if their diet was dialled in then all of that could leave them looking pretty good with a shirt off. High volumes of push-ups and pull-ups are classic builders of the upper body, and combine that with someone getting to reasonable body fat levels because they are burning calories via running, circuits etc. Then yes, their body composition end up being very good.

This approach suits some people. Without knowing more info it's hard to say, but a lot depends on what exactly you were doing in the gym in comparison. I see people using submaximal weights, short ranges of motion, never going near failure, and never progressing their programming. In theory if you put a lot of those people and they had to walk, run, do circuits etc. in lieu of the gym then yes, they might end up working harder...

When you say you're less bulky, do you mean you're leaner than you were before? I'm assuming you don't have body fat measurements to compare but your waist measurement tells a lot.

completedit

completedit wrote: »

Probably looked as fit as I ever have in the past year going on daily 10k walks and doing a few bodyweight exercises once or twice a week.

I honestly think the fitness industry has everyone fooled that they need to lift dumbells to have a good workout.

Are you talking about just losing weight or gaining muscle?

You don't need a gym to lose weight. You do need a gym or some weights to gain muscle. Push ups and sit ups won't do it.

italodisco

completedit wrote: »

Probably looked as fit as I ever have in the past year going on daily 10k walks and doing a few bodyweight exercises once or twice a week.

I honestly think the fitness industry has everyone fooled that they need to lift dumbells to have a good workout.

Looking fit as in a runners body fair enough.

But if you want beast legs then a gym is required to be able to squat, hack squat, leg curls and extensions, heavy and light calf raises on the machine, use cable crossover for glute work, use the roman chair for lower back and glutes...
All so much easier in gym, unless you're rich and have a huge garage to buy and put all the equipment in 😂

Strumms

I’d have never achieved my health and fitness goals without an actual gym.

At home I have a good bike, weights, resistance bands, suspension trainer, bosu ball and one or two bits and pieces.... in a few weeks I’ll bite the bullet and get a treadmill.... might for space reasons need to move the bike... but...

The gym has lots of stuff I love that I wouldn’t have room for, or money for at home... I love using....

Alter G, Cross trainer, rowing machines, lat pulldown, chess press machine... the facility also has a pool, sauna, jaccuzi...

Mellor

Felipe Hissing Violist wrote: »

You don't need a gym to lose weight. You do need a gym or some weights to gain muscle. Push ups and sit ups won't do it.

Not really.

TheAnalyst_

Mellor wrote: »

Not really.

Yeah just do 40 hours per week of gymnastics for a decade along with a steroid program to get a basic physique.

Dtp1979

Mellor wrote: »

Not really.

Jesus Robbie Williams is looking great these days

Mellor

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

Yeah just do 40 hours per week of gymnastics for a decade along with a steroid program to get a basic physique.

Basic physique. If you say so. ​:pac::pac::pac:


The fact is you don't need weights. Weights just provide resistance.
There are other ways to do that. Weights, bodyweight, bands, leverage etc
The common denominator is that you need hard work, sustained effort and the right diet.

In some areas, the gym is more efficient than the other ways. I'm not against the gym, I have two gym memberships. But let's the brutally honest. The gym isn't a magic transformation chamber. Plenty of people go to the gym regularly and don't ever get into a remotely good shape.

Somebody who trains bodyweight with a bit of dedication will be in better shape than 90% of gym goers.

Black Sheep

I obviously said above you can build a decent physique with the right diet and while limited to bodyweight resistance.

But at the same time, let's not pretend that have access to more extensive equipment is not a major aid when it comes to getting significant mass gain and hypertrophy going. To say major aid is probably underplaying it.

When it comes to people adding mass through bodyweight only training, there are YouTube calisthenics phenomenons working out in Brooklyn, or Olympic gymnasts, who are jacked, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule.

If someone's goal is to develop *some* muscle mass and a lot of functional strength then it can be a rewarding route. But if they have more conventional physique goals centring around hypertrophy then they really do need gym access or a well-equipped at-home equivalent.

I have a similar view around kettlebell-centred training and olympic lifting.

There are jacked kettlebell guys out there, and olympic weightlifters at the highest level are hypertrophied. But, as with bodyweight resistance training, the beauty of these training modalities does not centre on their utility for hypertrophy of most trainees.

The gymnast above, by the way - if that's a basic physique, I would definitely take it! I'm sure he's a complete short arse though, and there's the whole Robbie Williams thing.

Mellor

Black Sheep wrote: »

I obviously said above you can build a decent physique with the right diet and while limited to bodyweight resistance.

But at the same time, let's not pretend that have access to more extensive equipment is not a major aid when it comes to getting significant mass gain and hypertrophy going. To say major aid is probably underplaying it

I was responding to a poster who said you can't do build muscle without weights. Of course you can. But that doesn't imply there is no advantage to weights.
There's no reason to do one or the other though. Do both.

When it comes to people adding mass through bodyweight only training, there are YouTube calisthenics phenomenons working out in Brooklyn, or Olympic gymnasts, who are jacked, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule.

A large part of that is that excess mass is not necessarily an advantage to those guys. They want to be able to do dynamic moves, there's a power:mass sweet spot.
If somebody just wanted to get big and strong, they could take sow weighted pull ups pretty far imo.

There are jacked kettlebell guys out there, and olympic weightlifters at the highest level are hypertrophied. But, as with bodyweight resistance training, the beauty of these training modalities does not centre on their utility for hypertrophy of most trainees.

Agreed. Weightlifting builds power not mass.

TheAnalyst_

Black Sheep wrote: »

I obviously said above you can build a decent physique with the right diet and while limited to bodyweight resistance.

But at the same time, let's not pretend that have access to more extensive equipment is not a major aid when it comes to getting significant mass gain and hypertrophy going. To say major aid is probably underplaying it.

When it comes to people adding mass through bodyweight only training, there are YouTube calisthenics phenomenons working out in Brooklyn, or Olympic gymnasts, who are jacked, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule.

If someone's goal is to develop *some* muscle mass and a lot of functional strength then it can be a rewarding route. But if they have more conventional physique goals centring around hypertrophy then they really do need gym access or a well-equipped at-home equivalent.

I have a similar view around kettlebell-centred training and olympic lifting.

There are jacked kettlebell guys out there, and olympic weightlifters at the highest level are hypertrophied. But, as with bodyweight resistance training, the beauty of these training modalities does not centre on their utility for hypertrophy of most trainees.

The gymnast above, by the way - if that's a basic physique, I would definitely take it! I'm sure he's a complete short arse though, and there's the whole Robbie Williams thing.

You can get that physique in 6 months on two low level cycles and a bodybuilding program.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

I was responding to a poster who said you can't do build muscle without weights. Of course you can. But that doesn't imply there is no advantage to weights.
There's no reason to do one or the other though. Do both.

How can you build your biceps without weights?

listermint

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

Walking does sweet **** all for your body and fitness.

Waiting for you to walk back this ridiculous comment.

.pun intended.

Black Sheep

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

You can get that physique in 6 months on two low level cycles and a bodybuilding program.

Can't speak to 'low level cycles' but assuming you're talking about steroids then there's no doubt that would make it significantly easier to alter your physique radically in six months, sure.

Someone in their 20s, giving full compliance to diet and training, sleeping 8 hours minimum a night and with generally low levels of stress is well-placed to gain significant muscle mass in a surprisingly short period of time. People do it all the time, and I'm not even talking about a Colorado experiment type scenario.

I also think that sometimes people underestimate how effective direct training of the arms, shoulders and upper back can be in terms of transforming how someone looks.

If you take someone who is on a fairly run of the mill bodybuilding split, who has a rubbish squat and deadlift, but they have a dedicated arms day and incorporate a fair bit of side delt and trap /neck / upper back work, then they may end up with decent arms and a kind of yoked look that people associate with someone who trains, and is strong... Even if they aren't really, objectively speaking.

But will someone going from a normal or novice baseline end up looking like that gymnast in six months? If they're natural, I would say no. That kind of muscle density takes a long time and he probably had help too. They might have decent arms and shoulders, but that is not the same thing.

Black Sheep

Felipe Hissing Violist wrote: »

How can you build your biceps without weights?

Pull up variations would get you a certain distance, but if the broader objective was bigger arms then actually tricep work would be more important. I suppose that would be where close grip pushup variations would come in.

Shoulder work could be more of a challenge with bodyweight only training. Bands would be an easy fix, but then that's where the slide happens and before you know it you're in a fully kitted out gym :pac:

It's probably possible to work around all of this, but the point is that it would be a very suboptimal way to go about it compared to tried and tested isolation training using barbells, dumbbells, cables etc. Where you have more variation, greater ability to vary angles, potential to use some training protocols you can't with body weight stuff etc.

TheAnalyst_

listermint wrote: »

Waiting for you to walk back this ridiculous comment.

.pun intended.

How do you change your physique by walking?
And your fitness? What does getting your heart rate to 100bpm do for your fitness nothing.

listermint

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

How do you change your physique by walking?
And your fitness? What does getting your heart rate to 100bpm do for your fitness nothing.

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

How do you change your physique by walking?
And your fitness? What does getting your heart rate to 100bpm do for your fitness nothing.

Let's stick specifically to your exact words in your post . What you actual said was.

Walking does sweet f all for your body and fitness.


That statement is untrue do you agree ?

It reads like a brofest science free HIIT iron waffle. No fitness professional would make such a nonsense statement.

So as I said are you going to walk it back .

TheAnalyst_

No you ****ing moron.
Walk it back? Who talks like that?

bladespin

Walking gives wide lats and pythons! Who knew?????

listermint

Ok I see what you are about now wild trolling like statements and reaction getting.

Grand I see you now