LA Fitness bans mom for helping son lift weights.

This seems like a massive dick move to me. No discussion or anything. They just terminate her membership and she finds out the next day? :dubious:

Any gym members here? Are they all this ridiculous?

I understand the gym has their own trainers. Grubb can’t bring her own clients in there. But, helping her son? Wouldn’t that be a legit exception?

What if she was just a regular parent helping their kid? A glance at the picture and you can see the kid hasn’t exercised before. He’s scrawny with no muscle. She was just getting him started with weight lifting.
https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/mom-exercising-with-son-kicked-out-of-la-fitness-gym-200046358.html

I hope she learned her lesson.

My gym has the rule about no training except trainers employed by the gym. They have signs posted all over the place explaining the rule. I have never seen anyone kicked out but I have seen the management have conversations with dads who were not trainers, who wanted to coach their sons. I wonder, if this mom is a fitness trainer herself, why didn’t she take her son to the gym where she works? And, was the policy posted?

I’m a gym member, and not personally involved in this case.

I’m going to take the gym’s side here.

The article quoted states that** the mom is a fitness trainer**. As such, I’m sure she knows the rules: only fitness trainers that are employed by a particular gym are allowed to train other people at that gym. It’s not just a matter of insurance: personal training of gym members is a major source of income for both the personal trainers employed by the gym and the gym itself (both the trainer and the gym get a percentage of the revenue involved), and other fitness trainers are specifically prohibited from training their clients at any particular gym.

“Oh, but he’s my son.” “Oh, but she’s my girl friend.” “Oh, but he’s my neighbor.” just doesn’t cut it. Unless she’s employed by the gym (and the gym is getting a cut of the revenue), she’s not allowed to train others at that gym. That’s the deal, and I’m confident that she the gym membership that she signed contains a clause that specifically precludes that event from happening.

Oh, and if she’s employed at that same gym where she was training her son? She’s specifically precluded from free-lancing there, even if it’s her son. Otherwise every personal trainer out there would be “helping” their clients train for free (wink, wink) so that the gym wouldn’t get its cut.

Where does one draw the line between working out with someone and training them? They were both working out, typically when a trainer ‘trains’ a client, they aren’t working out along with the client.

It seems like they could tell the difference in helping their kid vs training. you get them started on an exercise and then continue with your own workout.

It all come down to greed and $$$. The gym wants to squeeze every nickle. The gym membership you pay for is just a way to get you in the door. They charge for every little thing. Classic shakedown.

Again, I don’t know anything specific about this case.

People work out together all the time at my gym. People work out together and give each other advice all the time at my gym. For that matter, people give me advice all the time at the gym. (I smile and thank them. Then I usually ignore their advice, but that’s just because I’m cantankerous. I do the same at the bowling alley.) Giving someone advice and training them is probably a matter of degree.

I’m going to guess that given that “One of the trainers approached me and asked me what I was doing”, she was probably going over the line.

Back in 2007 an article was posted about LA Fitness policies.

Sounds like LA Fitness should be avoided. Other gyms may offer better value.

Exactly. Just like if the mom was a baker and her son went to a restaurant for a meal but she brought in a dessert she made at home. Those ruthless bastards providing the tables and chairs and lights and restrooms and climate control probably wouldn’t let her serve it. Sonsa bitches, that’s how they get you.

Sorry, but, 13 is too young to be weight training. They were protecting the kid, whether that was there intent or not.

There’s been a change in thought on that subject.

Misconceptions About Training Youth(PDF)

Yep.

Ken Jennings discusses this in his book Because I Said So. Seems that a poorly researched original report came out (1960s IIRC), gained notoriety, yet even though debunked early on, the misconception has lasted.

The idea that 13 is too young to lift weights is as valid as the idea that one must wait an hour after eating before going into the pool.

Said people in the early 80s.

Ditto. My best friend is a fitness trainer and they all know better than this. You can’t bypass the gym getting their cut by claiming the person you’re training is a relative, friend or whatever. The only way this is a news story is most people don’t know how trainers and gyms work.

I really don’t understand what she thought she was doing - as a trainer, she didn’t need LA Fitness anyway. There are gyms that cater to trainers and clients; she could have taken her son to one of those. The cost would be about the same with much better facilities.

I’m not surprised there is more to this story. A trainer should know the rules and what’s allowed in the gym.

It’s a cheesy policy about greed on the part of the company/ employees. That we as a society even tolerate this is sad. Back in the 70s, it would be a made-for-TV-movie plot … with the gym as the villains.

??
Are there a lot of businesses that encourage competitors to do business on their premises? It would seem to be the height of folly to let others come onto your property and compete directly with you. Not greed.

If it’s about profit, then it’s about greed. The business is already successful, the in-house trainers already have plenty of clients. When you look at the world through green colored shades, everything is about money. From the perspective of the money-clutching employees and the company with it’s greedy policies, everything is about profit … rather than service, rather than reason, rather than compromise.

The business very well could make exceptions for parents with under-age children. They wouldn’t then have to allow any other excuse to prevail. “Zero-Tolerance” policies are so much crap … just a recently popular method of saying, “We won’t compromise, we won’t make exceptions, we won’t think, we justify anything we do, no matter how impersonal or ugly because … profit.”

I’m sad for the latest adult generation of media-braiwashed computer zombies who absorb the anti-social messages promoted by Corporate America.

I’m sad for those who think profit is a dirty word meaning greed. If companies don’t make a profit what do you think happens?

If companies make a profit without being soulless jerks, I’m good. If they institute asinine policies because … business, I have a problem.