Health Centres / Gyms

[joiner_sim]

Hi all,
Just wondering what the going rate for private health centre/ gyms is? I'm thinking about joining nuffield and will be going for a days trial to check it out, where I'm sure they'll discuss prices. But I'd like to have a better idea before hand how much I could expect to pay.

I'm after a membership for me and another person, possibly even off peak. The other person is a part-time university student.

Any info is appreciated, thanks

 

[CHJ]

£20-35 per month dependant on age group and activities.

Currently we pay £27 per month for an extremely well equipped Gym and heated indoor swimming pool access.

Managed by Every One Active which gives automatic membership and access to any of their managed facilities.

 

[RogerS]

The key question you need to ask yourself is what exactly do you want to get out of a gym/health club? What has prompted your interest?

Group exercise? Aerobic fitness? Weight gain? Weight loss? Flexibility? All-round fitness...whatever that means. What goals do you have?

Where am I coming from? Been knocking around gyms and health clubs for the last 25 years. Trained as an Instructor. I'm a member of a very small gym. No frills. Who needs scented shower gel? Take your own...save money. Took a quick peek at the Nuffield website. I could not see anything about their fees. Maybe I missed it. Maybe it's not there. What are they hiding? Personally I would run a mile from them and health clubs like them. Most are full of spotty youths with an NVQ in Fitness and experience measured in nanoseconds. Sounds big-headed but I find out I usually know as much if not more.

My gym is owned by Matt. Ex- national judo coach. Ex-body building champion. What he doesn't know about exercise, isn't worth bothering about. I bet there are similar gyms around your way with equally experienced guys/gals. Better value too (my membership is well under £300 for the year but I have to take my own shower gel). As you may have guessed, I have a very jaundiced view of the chains such as LA Fitness, Fitness First etc. Just my two penn'orth.

Edit: Sorry, Chas. I include Every One Active in that group as well.

 

[Racers]

Hi, joiner_sim

I work for a university and we have a gym my membership is £100 a year, and you don't have to work for the uni to use it, so that might be a cheaper way if the part time students uni has one.

We have a Nuffield one near us and I was shocked by the price.

Pete

 

[StevieB]

£40 a month for gym and squash court access here, and thats a local small privately run establishment. If you are looking at the larger chains such as Virgin Active then I know of people who happily pay over £80 a month for swankier surroundings and TVs to watch while they exercise. The other thing to watch is what is included in your fee - are consultations or workout programmes extra? Can you get advice when you need it, do you pay extra for classes or indiction and so on.

Good points raised by Roger.

Try and avoid if at all possible signing up for a year in advance - thats how gyms make their money, from people who sign up for a year to get a discounted price and then only ever attend for the first month. If you can trial it for a month first, or take out a 3 month introductory subscription then that may be better for you if that gym is not for you.

Steve

 

[bugbear]

"Let's have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck in traffic on
their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."

-- Earl Blumenauer

Seemed apposite.

BugBear

 

[CHJ]

Someone obviously does not have any physical health problems, aged over 70 or live in an area where every road for a 7 mile radius has hills of 1 in 5 or greater.

A GP referral for 12 months at £1 per session got me back walking 3 yrs ago and subsequent guidance on activities and intensity during 2-3 sessions most weeks has helped me considerably to maintain enough mobility to be able to trek for a day in the foothills of the atlas mountains.

 

[RogerS]

..... thats how gyms make their money, from people who sign up for a year to get a discounted price and then only ever attend for the first month.......

Steve

LOL! We called them the FF's...February Faders.

 

[StevieB]

Known as January Warriors in our neck of the woods

 

[Steve Jones]

All I'll say is avoid Fitness First !!!!!!

They'll do anything and offer you loads to get you there and when you don't renew your contract they'll make your life hell with the number of phone calls asking you to come back and I'm not the only one ! ! ! ! ! DAMHIKT !!!!!!!

Steve

 

[Benchwayze]

Right folks. This is from one who was morbidly obese, but who is now just obese; and losing still.

I am not medically qualified at all, but I’ll tell you what’s working for me, and it isn’t exercise. If you are interested in my tale, then read on.

By all means pay inflated prices for a Gym Subscription that you will probably tire of in a few months (or weeks) and then find out that you can't cancel because you didn't read the small print. I say this because I believe fitness exercise to be a waste of time. Aerobic is also not absolutely necessary. In fact, if you are excessively obese then you can't do enough to matter anyway, and all you do is risk stressing your heart, to the point of a heart attack. (Stress is the cause of heart attacks, and not so much what you eat. I got that nugget from a Doctor of Medicine, a friend whom I trust.)

My advice FWIW is for taking a good brisk walk everyday. That, combined with gardening and woodwork, should provide us with all the exercise we need naturally.

And why not running? To me, most long distance runners look underweight, and malnourished, and they probably have weak bones and over-stressed knees and hips. I know some will scoff at that, but really, just look at some of these ‘fit’ specimens who win marathons. They look half-starved!

I just believe we should run only when we are pursuing prey (Running for a bus counts) or running away from a predator. (Evading the Missus counts here!)

Seriously, how much running do you see lions doing when you watch the wildlife programmes, unless they are hunting? The truth is, with the exception of the young, most of the time wild animals are lying about doing nothing. And you don't see fat lions etc. And what do most wild animals eat? Just what they can catch or gather.

Okay I have this point of view, and it will bore some of you. But I read enough stuff to tell me we shouldn't be stuffing ourselves with starch and sugar. We do though, and it's only since the advent of 'refined flours' that we have had this huge obesity problem.

So I don’t eat much bread. I gave up spuds. I gave up sugar years ago, but now I also avoid cakes and pastries. The bottom line is, if it didn't walk about, fly in the air, swim, or grow above ground on a bush or tree, then I don't eat it. I am now losing weight like a good 'n, so it works for me,

Sincerely, I was huge and now I am just big. I have lost two stones so far. I feel heaps better, I have been able to reduce blood pressure medication, and even my Doc is pleased. (He thinks I am eating nothing but salad mind!) I can’t really tell him about the steak, nuts, scratchings and the liver, bacon and eggs! I just tell him I am careful what I eat. That's no lie. The fact that his careful, and my careful are totally opposite is neither here nor there.

Yum,yum… Painless weight loss.

John :lol:

 

[StevieB]

I am not medically qualified at all

Clearly, but thanks for the disclaimer anyway.

I say this because I believe fitness exercise to be a waste of time. Aerobic is also not absolutely necessary. In fact, if you are excessively obese then you can't do enough to matter anyway, and all you do is risk stressing your heart, to the point of a heart attack. (Stress is the cause of heart attacks, and not so much what you eat. I got that nugget from a Doctor of Medicine, a friend whom I trust.)

Define stress please? A heart attack is the failure of the heart muscle to pump sufficient blood round the body to supply it with its oxygen needs. This is typically (although not exclusively) as a consequence of atheroma blocking the coronary vessels and preventing sufficient oxygenated blood reaching the heart from the lungs to enable the cardiac muscle to contract and function properly. The vast majority of the medical profession would disagree with your statement that fitness exercise is a waste of time. Suggesting that you cannot do enough to matter if you are obese is factually incorrect. Your tolerance for exercise and capacity to perform it will be reduced, but it will still be of benefit. You will need to start slower and have a lower threshold but it will be of benefit - you example of a brisk walk is aerobic exercise and a contradiction of your statement.

And why not running? To me, most long distance runners look underweight, and malnourished, and they probably have weak bones and over-stressed knees and hips. I know some will scoff at that, but really, just look at some of these ‘fit’ specimens who win marathons. They look half-starved!

You are not comparing like with like. Marathon runners are thin because this gives them faster marathon times. They are not thin simply becasue they run. Running per se is not a bad form of exercise, although as you correctly identify it does tend to stress joints and cause problems if taken to excess. Whether they look underweight or malnourished or not is an opinion unrealted to whether they are healthy or not.

Seriously, how much running do you see lions doing when you watch the wildlife programmes, unless they are hunting? The truth is, with the exception of the young, most of the time wild animals are lying about doing nothing. And you don't see fat lions etc. And what do most wild animals eat? Just what they can catch or gather.

This is unrelated to exercise, and more related to availability of food supply. Humans were not obese until a plentiful food supply was available to us. I am not quite sure exactly what your point is here.

So I don’t eat much bread. I gave up spuds. I gave up sugar years ago, but now I also avoid cakes and pastries. The bottom line is, if it didn't walk about, fly in the air, swim, or grow above ground on a bush or tree, then I don't eat it. I am now losing weight like a good 'n, so it works for me,

Sincerely, I was huge and now I am just big. I have lost two stones so far. I feel heaps better, I have been able to reduce blood pressure medication, and even my Doc is pleased. (He thinks I am eating nothing but salad mind!) I can’t really tell him about the steak, nuts, scratchings and the liver, bacon and eggs! I just tell him I am careful what I eat. That's no lie. The fact that his careful, and my careful are totally opposite is neither here nor there.

I am glad you have found a regimen that works for you, and well done for losing two stone. Irrespective of the methodology behind the diet, you have discovered that if you take in less calories than you consume you will lose weight, if you take in excess calories you will gain weight. All diets adhere to this basic principle, but tailor the message to suit the target audience. How you reduce calories is irrelevant (unless you start excluding essential vitamins and minerals). The speed at which you reduce them is important, the relative balance between diet and exercise is important. The continual slow reduction in calorific intake as your body loses weight and therefore requires less input is important. Whether you eat only green things, or porridge, or slimfast shakes, or count weight watchers points is unimportant. Underlying all these is calorific intake.

Keep up the good work, but please don't write off exercise as a waste of time, or believe everything your doctor tells you, even if he is a very good friend indeed. Having MBBS after your name does not make you an oracle - I should know, I teach them on a daily basis!

Steve

 

[Jacob]

To lose weight, eating less is 90% of it. Fat obviously but also wheat. I discovered this by chance as I had a bit of a wheat problem and had to give it up completely. Almost everything wheat based is fattening. Bread, cake, pastry, pies, pasta, sandwiches (with butter and other fillings), sauces, puddings etc etc. Boring diet without it, at first, but gets better with a bit of thought. Better now but have to be careful.
But if you get a bicycle and do 50 miles or more every week and go swimming once a week, at a minimum, you'll really feel the benefit - and possibly enjoy yourself in the process.

 

[RogerS]

To lose weight, eating less is 90% of it. Fat obviously but also wheat. I discovered this by chance as I had a bit of a wheat problem and had to give it up completely. Almost everything wheat based is fattening. Bread, cake, pastry, pies, pasta, sandwiches (with butter and other fillings), sauces, puddings etc etc. Boring diet without it, at first, but gets better with a bit of thought. Better now but have to be careful.
But if you get a bicycle and do 50 miles or more every week and go swimming once a week, at a minimum, you'll really feel the benefit - and possibly enjoy yourself in the process.

No.

Wheat is not some bad demon that makes us put on fat. Complete tosh. If you eat loads of mass produced bread then that has a lot of extra sugar it not to mention the salt. But it has nothing to do wheat per se.

 

[TrimTheKing]

Sorry if this offends, but the comment that stress is what causes heart attacks and less about what you eat, is utter rubbish. The heart is a muscle and needs exercise to do its job properly, and I'm sorry but if thats what you Doctor friend told you then I'm glad I'm not under his care.

I know all comments need to be taken in context and he may well have said more than you have posted, but look at it this way. Take a man who eats healthily, has a good body weight but works in a highly stressed environment, with inflated blood pressure, for an extended period of time. He then has a heart attack. That is stress related. The high blood pressure putting undue stress on the heart muscle by pumping too hard for too long.

Take another person who has a shocking diet, sits on their arse all day watching TV and having their bills paid by the state. Arteries completely clogged with cake and bacon butties, but the only stress is the decision wether to have that third chocolate eclair or not, and they have a heart attack. Can you really compare the two?

Now I know they are two extremes, but using one statement to cover all options is a very dangerous thing to do.

It's all about balance. Eat well, which means balancing healthy with enjoyable, and keeping your body moving enough to burn some calories will keep most of us alive for a long time. Most of all, don't eat more than you need.

Cheers
Mark

 

[StevieB]

Almost everything wheat based is fattening. Bread, cake, pastry, pies, pasta, sandwiches (with butter and other fillings), sauces, puddings etc etc.

There is no such thing as a fattening food and a non-fattening food! Foods have different calorific contents per unit weight, so eating the same weight of some foods gives you more calories than others (which is why calories in foods are displayed as per 100g as well as per unit or portion - so you can compare them directly). Cutting out or reducing one food group is just another way or restricting calorific intake. What you are actually saying above is that wheat has a high calorific content. This means you don't need to eat much of it to exceed your bodies energy requriements and therefore put on weight.

Steve

 

[Jacob]

.... What you are actually saying above is that wheat has a high calorific content. This means you don't need to eat much of it to exceed your bodies energy requriements and therefore put on weight.

Steve

In other words; it's fattening!

 

[Jacob]

To lose weight, eating less is 90% of it. Fat obviously but also wheat. I discovered this by chance as I had a bit of a wheat problem and had to give it up completely. Almost everything wheat based is fattening. Bread, cake, pastry, pies, pasta, sandwiches (with butter and other fillings), sauces, puddings etc etc. Boring diet without it, at first, but gets better with a bit of thought. Better now but have to be careful.
But if you get a bicycle and do 50 miles or more every week and go swimming once a week, at a minimum, you'll really feel the benefit - and possibly enjoy yourself in the process.

No.

Wheat is not some bad demon that makes us put on fat. Complete tosh. If you eat loads of mass produced bread then that has a lot of extra sugar it not to mention the salt. But it has nothing to do wheat per se.

Not tosh at all.
I lost weight because I stopped eating wheat products. Demons have nothing to do with it. Wheat just happens to be a major "vehicle" for extra calories. Wholewheat bread too. I used to make it with low salt and no fat, and eat loads of it, on the assumption it was doing me good but it wasn't, except it makes you carp like a cart-horse!
I also got the impression that wheat verges on the addictive (think fresh warm bread, toast etc yum yum)* and had something like withdrawal symptoms - something I'm used to as an ex smoker.

PS* or steamed treacle pudding, hobnobs, :shock: . So very many very tasty things are wheat based that doing without it makes for a very dull diet at first, which is why you lose weight of course.

 

[StevieB]

.... What you are actually saying above is that wheat has a high calorific content. This means you don't need to eat much of it to exceed your bodies energy requriements and therefore put on weight.

Steve

In other words; it's fattening!

](*,)

 

[Jacob]

.... What you are actually saying above is that wheat has a high calorific content. This means you don't need to eat much of it to exceed your bodies energy requriements and therefore put on weight.

Steve

In other words; it's fattening!

](*,)

Fat is fattening too and wheat tends to be a vehicle for fat itself - butter, dripping, fat in biscuits, puddings, in pastry - before you even get to the fillings , which in e.g. a pork pie is going to be 75% solid fat on it's own :shock:
See what I mean by wheat as a vehicle? Then there is wheat as a vehicle for sugars, and so on.