The future of fitness is together but alone: Article about Peleton etc

I don't think it's a trend that will slow down. Anything connected has some advantages for some users. And I also think at some point costs will go down. As they figure out how to best integrate the tech, demand will rise to the point that the volume allows them to reduce costs to the end user.

With so many people living busy lives, the chances of them working out together lower. But these devices let them try a new route.

I strongly believe this is the direction of fitness. Peleton is starting to expand beyond biking to just interactive HR zone workouts with others. There is a new Indoor Rower that is copying Peleton. The name is Hydro or something like that. Some business model. Zwift is supposed to come out with something for the rower.

I think someone will create something like Orange Theory, but for the home. Combining an OT type Cardio board, but working out at home. That's not far off. You will pay a subscription model and have certain equipment and it will be like OT or CrossFit comes to the home workout.

For me, it's about efficiency. I don't have the time to be interactive with others for working out.

I’m sure there is a segment of the population this appeals to but I don’t see how it is the only future. My friend decided to get Peleton because she became dissatisfied with the places she worked out. She used to workout 5x/week with classes. Now she only works out 3x/week. And for less time than she normally would workout. She loves the convenience of it but for some reason she just doesn’t workout as much. For me I like the social interaction of group classes. Then I just want to get outside for hiking. The trails near me have only become more crowded over the past three years with people as well as mountain bikes so I don’t notice more people working out at home.

jjpptt2 wrote: »

Full disclosure - I don't have the bandwidth/data allowance to do things like zwift, peleton, etc... so I'm speaking from virtually zero experience.

I think 90% of peleton bikes/treadmills will eventually become the same drying rack for wet laundry that 90% of traditional bikes/treadmills are. Do I think connected training (or whatever you want to call this) will find it's niche? Yep, especially if/when pricing comes down. Do I think it will take over? No. So I guess I agree with @Azdak - *the* future of fitness? No. *a* future? Sure.

I suspect that this will happen with peloton bikes and treadmills. I think where Zwift, TrainerRoad, and the other Zwift competitors that don't require or strongly encourage you buy one of their bikes have an edge in that regard is that they don't require the large expense of essentially a proprietary spin bike and the subscription is far cheaper. Yes Zwift and the others are more interesting with a smart trainer, but you can just as easily put your bike on a $50 "dumb" trainer that you might already own (assuming there's a power curve that Zwift has for it), buy a bluetooth and/or ANT+ enabled cadence and speed sensor, and a dongle for your computer if needed (you can also play it on iOS, Android, and Apple TV). That's what I did for probably my first year of using Zwift. The cost of entry is significantly cheaper. I mean even if you wanted to get one of the most expensive bike trainers, the cost would still be lower assuming you already had a bike (and I can't imagine why you'd get a trainer that expensive if you didn't) or if you bought an inexpensive bike from Craigslist of your local bike store.

I will say that I think the tag line zwift is using in its commercials right now - "fun works" - is a good one. For people who want a bit of competition without the fear of being judged/failing/whatever that comes from actual competition, virtual competition could be a great option... many of the pros without any of the cons.

I think there are pros and cons of racing indoors, but I do agree that it too has a lower barrier of entry as compared to racing outdoors. It's also significantly safer because it takes a fair amount of skill to fall off a bike on a bike trainer (unless you're on rollers...). That's why I was allowed to ride my bike on the trainer much sooner than I was allowed to ride outside after my knee surgeries. From what I understand, the tactics are also pretty different which is interesting (and that's not even taking into account bike handling...). There are also races every single day, you don't have to travel to get to them, etc.

And one last related thought... again, having no actual experience...
With online gaming, you can "meet up" with a group of people and play. I wonder if the same type of dynamic will eventually form with connected fitness. For example... I know I can't meet up with my local bike group for their Friday ride. But I can, and do, spin every saturday morning at 6am. Will I start to see some of the same "people" week after week and build "relationships" with them? Is that type of interaction possible? Or could I "meet up" wiht my buddy in Texas and my brother in Colorado for a "ride"?

Yeah that is definitely possible in Zwift (not for any of Zwift's major competitors if we take Peloton out of this - I can't speak for them). There are group rides that meet regularly and, from what I can tell. you can invite people to a private group ride. So for instance, I could invite a friend in Connecticut, a friend in Wisconsin, and a friend in Washington to our own private group ride. There are also different group workouts multiple times a day around the clock. In all of these situations and when riding on Zwift while not on a group ride or workout, you can type in messages. The group ride I did yesterday had a bit a trivia theme to the messages. There also seem to be a lot of groups that use the voice function in Discord to talk to each other.

I should also note that the group rides have different categories with regards to watts/kg as do the races. So for instance, right now I typically will not do any group ride that says they go over 2.0 watts/kg because I know I won't be able to keep up (will get dropped). The nice thing about the [structured] workouts is that they keep everyone bunched together regardless of what their FTP (functional threshold power) is.

Lastly, there are also just a ton of people on Zwift at all times of the day. I don't know that I've ever seen fewer than 500 people on it any time that I've logged in. As of now there are nearly 2,000 people logged in and I can't imagine people just log in and leave their computers for an hour. It's cool and it is also part of what makes it kind of difficult to do recovery rides on it. There are so many people to try to chase down!

And now I'm going to try to do an actual recovery ride and watch something that isn't the TdF because how dare they have rest days

jjpptt2 wrote: »

Full disclosure - I don't have the bandwidth/data allowance to do things like zwift, peleton, etc... so I'm speaking from virtually zero experience.

I think 90% of peleton bikes/treadmills will eventually become the same drying rack for wet laundry that 90% of traditional bikes/treadmills are. Do I think connected training (or whatever you want to call this) will find it's niche? Yep, especially if/when pricing comes down. Do I think it will take over? No. So I guess I agree with @Azdak - *the* future of fitness? No. *a* future? Sure.

I will say that I think the tag line zwift is using in its commercials right now - "fun works" - is a good one. For people who want a bit of competition without the fear of being judged/failing/whatever that comes from actual competition, virtual competition could be a great option... many of the pros without any of the cons.

And one last related thought... again, having no actual experience...
With online gaming, you can "meet up" with a group of people and play. I wonder if the same type of dynamic will eventually form with connected fitness. For example... I know I can't meet up with my local bike group for their Friday ride. But I can, and do, spin every saturday morning at 6am. Will I start to see some of the same "people" week after week and build "relationships" with them? Is that type of interaction possible? Or could I "meet up" wiht my buddy in Texas and my brother in Colorado for a "ride"?

I must be amongst the 10% you're referring to. I bought my bike 3 years ago this month and I still use it at least 3x per week. I'm primarily a long distance runner--I run a few halfs per year and I'm doing 2 full marathons this fall-- so training for those takes up the bulk of my fitness routine. I love my peloton bike--the shine has not worn off for me. I work full-time and I have two children, one of whom is two years old. I don't have a lot of free time to myself so I love the convenience of having the bike at home. Because of my work schedule and family commitments, I don't get to take the live classes very often but when I do, it's a real treat. I don't join the classes to build the relationships with the people online so I'm not familiar with that mentality.
I use their app as a training tool for my indoor running to assuage treadmill running boredom and occasionally for my outdoor runs to mix things up. I don't own a Peloton tread because I didn't see the point in purchasing that. I have a high quality treadmill that bought refurbished and it does the deed just fine--I prefer outdoor running anyway.
Where I live my friends and colleagues spend over $100 (plus the childcare fees) on their gym memberships (and many go only 2-3x per week). Given that I use the bike and/or the app in some respect every day I would say my $40 per month is well worth it if you ask me. Just my two cents.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

I know I'm describing a reaction that's mainly about personal preference, not absolute value, but in a way, I can see the point of these "virtual group" activity, but in another way it scares me: Though there's exercise, it still seems like a Wall-E kind of direction.

If I go on a social bike ride with an app, I can see how that's more engaging than just chugging away on a stationary bike in my house alone. Cool. But, in terms of well-rounded life rewards, it doesn't come close to a real life bike ride with my women from the Y, or in different ways, even to my spin class there.

It's seductively convenient, but pseudo-social, semi-physical (in the 360-degree 5-senses meaning) . . . kind of fake, or at least shallow, in comparison. (It kind of blows up the Marshall McLuhan hot/cold media paradigm, as an aside.)

And Hydrow . . . live "on water" rows with an expert, and that sort of thing? Compared to live rows with my not-so-expert on-water rowing buddies (let alone real life live rows with actual experts, which thrillingly happens sometimes)? No comparison, but I can see how it can simulate equivalence, in an ultra-seductive way, especially for people who've never experienced the non-virtual, non-machine version. The risks are so much lower. It's so convenient. But I might need to stockpile some extra patience for the people who come to the rowng club thinking they can already row, because of something like this (a little bit of that from machine rowers already; being a skilled machine rower can help, but there's a bit more to it ).

The virtual approach gives up a lot, IMO . . . the actual wildlife, learning viscerally about weather and waves, reading the current and the oar-blades with your body and brain, nuanced and complicated social interactions that are revelatory of personality and character? (If I pick up pressure, does my double partner pick up pressure, too? How do they behave if something goes wrong? How do I behave when something goes wrong, for that matter? When we put away the equipment, who hustles or helps others, and who doesn't? If I have a big home project, will the other participants come over and help me? Do we go out for a non-virtual beer on my birthday?) It's literally denatured.

So, IMO it's an inadequate substitute. Better than solo isolated machine work, potentially. Could be a good adjunct, when other things aren't possible. But it's seductive, simulating social relationships and a good share of the applied physics and visceral physical knowlege . . . maybe especially tempting for introverts and busy people.

I kinda hope it's not the future of fitness. We'd be experientially poorer if it were.

Agree with everything you're saying, but at the same time, my social life isn't about exercise. I think, aside from the busy person you're describing, many simply would rather socialize in different settings than with exercise, if that makes sense. So yes, if my social exercise circle is virtual, I'm OK with that.

For instance, with me, I enjoy rowing more than anything. However, I'm landlocked. I could spend 4 to 6 hours on the weekend riding a bike and becoming a weekend cyclist, but I'd miss out on the weekend with my wife and dogs (and friends). I know a lot of folks where their exercise community becomes their ONLY social circle too.

How many CrossFitters do you know where the only thing they talk about is CF? Or the gym rats that only knows the gym (and wants to take up your time in the gym because that's their only social interaction)? I know OTW rowers that their entire social circle is around their local rowing club (or biking club, same thing). Oh, since moving to Tucson, there are Pickleballers that only know other Pickleballers. Great! Not for me! So, while I'm enjoying dancing, going out to dinner dates with friends or helping a start-up down at the University or simply walking my dogs catching up with my wife, I'm engaged in social circles that are more meaningful (to me).

There might be many more, like me, that would rather spend their social time (even if they aren't particularly busy) with other avenues, not fitness. That would definitely describe my wife! She'd rather have her social circles around dinner, music, dancing, dogs. She does like to hike, so that's more in line with the experiential part you're describing. And while she's busy, she has enough downtime to join a fitness club or hiking group if she wanted, that's just not her cup of tea (and she's hardly an introvert, just the opposite). This niche could give many just enough, but not too much interaction based around fitness. The other issue is getting to the gym, dealing with dirty gyms, crowded glass, etc. My wife hates being elbow to elbow with others when she works out and doesn't like relying on others pace when she hikes (or others waiting on her).

But I totally get what you're saying. Some it will appeal to are perhaps total introverts that enjoy things like gaming. Is that the worst thing in the world for them? I think it has its place and I think it's better than sitting in a living room doing nothing but gaming or watching TV. But I would agree that real social interaction is better.

MikePfirrman wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

I know I'm describing a reaction that's mainly about personal preference, not absolute value, but in a way, I can see the point of these "virtual group" activity, but in another way it scares me: Though there's exercise, it still seems like a Wall-E kind of direction.

If I go on a social bike ride with an app, I can see how that's more engaging than just chugging away on a stationary bike in my house alone. Cool. But, in terms of well-rounded life rewards, it doesn't come close to a real life bike ride with my women from the Y, or in different ways, even to my spin class there.

It's seductively convenient, but pseudo-social, semi-physical (in the 360-degree 5-senses meaning) . . . kind of fake, or at least shallow, in comparison. (It kind of blows up the Marshall McLuhan hot/cold media paradigm, as an aside.)

And Hydrow . . . live "on water" rows with an expert, and that sort of thing? Compared to live rows with my not-so-expert on-water rowing buddies (let alone real life live rows with actual experts, which thrillingly happens sometimes)? No comparison, but I can see how it can simulate equivalence, in an ultra-seductive way, especially for people who've never experienced the non-virtual, non-machine version. The risks are so much lower. It's so convenient. But I might need to stockpile some extra patience for the people who come to the rowng club thinking they can already row, because of something like this (a little bit of that from machine rowers already; being a skilled machine rower can help, but there's a bit more to it ).

The virtual approach gives up a lot, IMO . . . the actual wildlife, learning viscerally about weather and waves, reading the current and the oar-blades with your body and brain, nuanced and complicated social interactions that are revelatory of personality and character? (If I pick up pressure, does my double partner pick up pressure, too? How do they behave if something goes wrong? How do I behave when something goes wrong, for that matter? When we put away the equipment, who hustles or helps others, and who doesn't? If I have a big home project, will the other participants come over and help me? Do we go out for a non-virtual beer on my birthday?) It's literally denatured.

So, IMO it's an inadequate substitute. Better than solo isolated machine work, potentially. Could be a good adjunct, when other things aren't possible. But it's seductive, simulating social relationships and a good share of the applied physics and visceral physical knowlege . . . maybe especially tempting for introverts and busy people.

I kinda hope it's not the future of fitness. We'd be experientially poorer if it were.

<vaguely indefensible snip of good thinking and useful ideas, to constrain reply length>

But I totally get what you're saying. Some it will appeal to are perhaps total introverts that enjoy things like gaming. Is that the worst thing in the world for them? I think it has its place and I think it's better than sitting in a living room doing nothing but gaming or watching TV. But I would agree that real social interaction is better.

Not just the social, though: Less-deep learning across other dimensions. I'm not saying that no one should sacrifice that, in pursuit of other priorities, but I'm concerned that people don't realize what they're giving up. I mean, they saw the Great Blue Heron in the on-water rowing video, and heard the oars splashing, and saw the wind on the water, after all. It was a rewarding experience. (<= not sarcastic.)

I'm going to draw a distant parallel, maybe it will make sense: A friend was a teacher of 5th-graders. As her students over a decade or so spent more daily time on virtual pursuits (TV, gaming, etc.) and less on real-object play, they became less able to do an exercise that was a capstone to a unit on simple machines. They were supposed to take a collection of things (cardstock, paper-brads, straws, tape, etc.), and make a vehicle that could be propelled across a tabletop by blowing on it. Over time, the new classes became much less able to figure out how to make wheels and axles out of that stuff, and do the task.

I already see some of the same less-deep learning in people I row with, who don't have much of a history in outdoor activity. They can't read weather. They can't visualize currents based on the shape of the riverbed. They don't know that there's anything there to know, even, in some cases. Does this cause disconnection from nature, then less sensitivity to or understanding of (say) ecological policy issues? I don't know.

It's kind of like (what I perceive as) the MBA-ification of managment, over time, as compared with a more common promote-from-ranks-of-doers approach to management. Some things are gained, but others are lost. In the bad cases, part of what's lost is a gut-level intuition about real-world impacts or implications of decisions.

Even now, fewer people (percent of regular folks) seem to play a musical instrument, or go out https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/, or that sort of thing, compared to my youth. More people watch experts do those things on TV, or play video games that simulate them, and whatnot: More virtualized.

Virtualizing real things gives up dimensions of learning, sort of invisibly.

Is that OK? Sure, especially at an individual level. If these virtual group-activity things become the future of exercise, I think we collectively give up something, in a way that makes me sad.

I have a longer reply but I'm on my phone and thus I'll write that when I get home tomorrow morning.

That said, with regards to some of what Ann discussed, I think it's important to note that people have been training inside for a very long time long time. There's a Global Cycling Network video somewhere that shows the oldest exsting set of rollers - they're essentially logs.

A large portion of Zwift's initial audience and likely more of TrainerRoad's and Suffer Fest's audience is people who would train inside for at least part of the year regardless. That, i suspect, is part of why they have been as successful as they have been as companies. They're making something that people would already be doing more interesting and arguably more effective in some cases.

Do I think there are issues with regards to things like bike handling, group riding etiquette, racing etiquette, etc? Of course I do (I've mentioned this previously in this thread). However, those issues would be there for anyone new to riding in various situations (racing or in a group).

We also totally have novices who have just come fresh out of learn to row and think they can do anything, including things that they have never done before (race starts anyone?)...it's an amusing if not frustrating situation.

You always bring up good points Ann. In my case, and it might be a rare one, the metrics and analytics created by the Virtual rower will one day get me out on the water. Something I probably would never have tried had it not been for a machine, used in isolation for sheer efficiency, introducing rowing to me.

I have my eye out on some Introduction to Rowing next year up in Tempe. I won't be able to regularly partake, but they offer four classes over two weeks on Sat and Sun mornings. I only live 90 minutes from Tempe.

Azdak wrote: »

This kind of stuff always brings out the Fitness Curmudgeon™️ in me With their upcoming IPO, Peloton is pumping this stuff big time. All these things sound exciting when they first come out. However, time has shown that no matter how supposedly “new and unique” the new type of exercise, the percentage of people who will actually use it consistently remains stubbornly consistent. (20-25%)

So IMO, while this may represent *a* future of exercise, it does not represent *the* future of exercise.

(And get off my lawn... yarr) 😂

Yep believe this was marketed as the future of fitness also:

AnnPT77 wrote: »

I'm not trying to be a luddite here, truly. Progress is good, at some level of abstract generality. But not all progress is all good in all ways. I'm happy with the idea of virtual group exercise as an option in a wide spectrum of options. Choices are good. I'm more skeptical about the effects if it were to drive out other forms (or dramatically reduce participation in them).

Agreed. Especially the bolded part.

I think it's harder for me to think about the possible rammifications at the extremes because I can't see things getting to the point where virtual group activities become the norm for the masses. I can see there being 2 strong niches... (1) people who want an interactive experience from the comfort of their home (very much what Peloton has been pushing, at least from the ads I've seen), and (2) people who want an indoor, training-specific, focused workout option to supplement their time on the road/bike/boat/whatever. I just can't imagine virtual group classes becoming the primary exercise/activity option for the majority of people.