Why More Gyms and Fitness Clubs? Rebuilding Strength in a Changed World
At first glance, the question seems reasonable: Why do we need more gyms? Why more places dedicated to exercise when fitness facilities already appear widespread?
The answer lies not in excess, but in necessity.
Gyms today are no longer simply spaces for physical training. They have become places where people can consciously step away from the demands of modern life – where tools are put down, noise is reduced, and attention is redirected inward. They are environments designed to rebuild strength – both mental and physical – in order to better cope with the stresses of contemporary living.
Human bodies have not changed significantly over the past century. Our lifestyles, however, have changed profoundly.
Modern technology has removed much of the physical movement once required for everyday functioning. Tasks that previously demanded effort – walking, lifting, carrying, manual preparation – have been replaced by automation, remote controls, screens, and voice commands. Work has become increasingly sedentary, often requiring prolonged sitting with minimal movement.
This shift has resulted in a reduction in what exercise science refers to as incidental physical activity – the movement that once occurred naturally throughout the day. Physical activity is no longer embedded in daily life; it must now be intentionally planned.
If we choose to embrace technology – and there is no realistic alternative – then we must also create deliberate spaces where the body can move, load, and adapt. Gyms, fitness clubs, and home exercise environments exist to fill that gap.
Historically, daily life required physical exertion. Washing laundry by hand, walking to shops, manual labour, food preparation, and cooking all involved meaningful energy expenditure. Even obtaining food required effort – gathering, preparing, and cooking were integral parts of eating.
Energy intake was often modest, while energy expenditure was high. People were not necessarily exercising by design, but they were moving because life demanded it. Leaner physiques were common – not because of dieting culture, but because physical activity was unavoidable.
This brings us to a fundamental physiological principle: energy in versus energy out.
In the past, energy intake was constrained by availability and effort. Today, energy-dense foods are abundant, highly processed, and constantly accessible, while daily energy expenditure continues to decline. This imbalance favours energy intake over energy output, contributing to increases in subcutaneous fat and visceral fat – the latter being particularly associated with metabolic and cardiovascular disease.
Gyms can be understood as a modern response to this imbalance. They are not indulgences, but countermeasures – places where energy expenditure is intentionally restored through movement, resistance, and load-bearing activity.
Another important – and often overlooked – factor shaping physical health is cultural pressure around body appearance, particularly for women.
In the 1960s, the ultra-thin aesthetic popularised by figures such as Twiggy became a dominant ideal. Thinness was celebrated, while muscle and strength were largely ignored or discouraged. For many women, maintaining a low body weight became synonymous with health and attractiveness.
Decades later, the long-term effects of this mindset are becoming evident. Among women now in their 70s and 80s – particularly those in residential and nursing care – loss of muscle mass and protective tissue is common. This age-related process, known as sarcopenia, significantly increases vulnerability to falls and fractures.
Importantly, this is not simply a consequence of ageing. It reflects a lifetime in which muscle development was undervalued, resistance training was uncommon, and strength was rarely prioritised.
Today’s aesthetic ideals have shifted once again. The current focus on gluteal development, or the “booty”, is largely driven by fashion and social media. Yet there is an irony worth acknowledging.
When gluteal size is achieved through resistance training – rather than cosmetic intervention – it reflects increased muscle mass in a region critical for balance, posture, gait, and hip stability. Strong gluteal muscles contribute to functional movement and play a key role in fall prevention.
From a long-term health perspective, this shift – if grounded in genuine strength training – may offer protective benefits later in life. Load-bearing and resistance exercise stimulate muscle maintenance and bone density, both of which are essential for preserving independence.
The problem is not that gyms exist in abundance, but that movement has been removed from everyday life. Gyms have become the places where what was once natural must now be deliberate.
They are environments for rebuilding tissue, restoring resilience, and maintaining the physical capacity required to navigate modern demands. They allow people to use the time saved by technology not for further inactivity, but to reinvest in their health.
In a world that asks less of our bodies but more of our minds, gyms have become places of restoration rather than vanity.
Seen through this lens, the question is no longer why more gyms? The real question may be: How could we function without them?
Nick Prince, RN, MPH, FNM - Director and Founder of Savuti Health and Fitness