Gyms for Free in Low Income Areas

Imagine a world where saving money on a gym membership and still being able to get a workout coexisted. The amount of money this would save for the common American would be very high. For some Americans, however, the issue with exercising or going to the gym is not due to a lack of motivation but rather due to the cost of going. Although I agree with the authors of Gym for Free that public health declining in lesser income areas is due to a lack of exercise, they oversimplify this issue and blame it mainly on exercise. This implies that those in low-income areas do not try to exercise for other reasons besides money when this is not the case. Residents in low income areas do not have access to a good gym, and it should be free so that public health will rise as a result.
For many residents in low-income areas, the gym is not a question of motivation but of access. Gyms typically are not built in low-income areas due to the fact that they tend to follow profit rather than what is necessary for the public. Private gym chains tend to open locations in environments where the memberships can be afforded, leaving a large number of communities without proper places to work out. Lots of residents in lower-income communities believe working out is a necessity. The Lancet explains this in more detail with this quote: “​​Poor populations in LMICs live under a physical activity paradox, in which high levels of compulsory physical activity are required (when there is no choice) in poor conditions, especially in relation to getting to work and transport, while levels of physical activity are low during leisure time.” (Global Health). Gym for Free states in their essay that cost is a very big factor to those living in low-income areas with this quote: “Cost seemed to be an important barrier to participation in exercise in our study group; the free service was therefore a prime motivator.” (12). The paper also shows that for many residents the issue of exercise is not a lack of will but of opportunity. Gym for Free shows this with this quote: “Figure 1 also indicates that nearly one-third of the respondents (n = 73) never used the leisure facilities prior to the introduction of the scheme, suggesting a link between cost and frequency of use.” (5). The study also points out that this plan was made to increase exercise for multiple benefits. Gym for Free goes into more detail about this with this quote: "Thus, the Gym for Free scheme was a step towards addressing health inequality by increasing access to and widening participation in exercise with multiple physical, mental and emotional benefits.” (1). This further shows that access is a critical component for the rise in exercise. In low-income communities, most people juggle raising kids, working multiple jobs, or even long work hours, which can directly prohibit their ability to go to the gym; making the gym nearby and free can help this. This means that the idea that low-income residents simply choose not to exercise is ignorant of social impediments. Lower-income residents are not unmotivated; they are simply under-supported. Having a free local gym helps remove some social barriers and makes public health rise as a result.
Today, most gyms are not just about lifting weights or getting a good workout in. Nowadays they serve as social hubs where people of all different backgrounds come to socialize and also better themselves physically and mentally. Gym for Free takes note of this yet again with this quote: “Thus, the Gym for Free scheme was a step towards addressing health inequality by increasing access to and widening participation in exercise with multiple physical, mental and emotional benefits.” (1). If the gym were made free in lower-income areas, it could attract more members by just eliminating the financial burden. Gym for Free shows that once free access was introduced, residents who used the leisure facilities drastically rose. They show this in this quote: “Figure 1 provides a breakdown of frequency of use before and after the introduction of the scheme. The proportion of respondents who used the facilities almost every day or most days increased from 25% to 64%, and those who never used the leisure facilities decreased from 28% to 0%.” (5). This rise shows us that gym usage is more popular once the issue of payment is removed and that an increase in members can plausibly improve public health. Also, gyms provide more than merely just exercise. Attending the gym regularly can help improve your mood, self-esteem, and even social connections. The authors of Gym for Free note this in their essay with this quote: “Based on data generated from this study, free access to the Gym for Free scheme appears to affect all aspects of well-being as highlighted above, particularly in relation to social connectedness and creating a positive environment for health (Figure 3).” (11). For lower-income areas that tend to already have a strain on certain aspects like these, these benefits matter. The gym can become a community resource that inspires others in this area to want to better themselves.
As shown in the Op Ed, once the Birmingham study was finished, health rates and attendance at the gym rose at an exponentially high rate. This can be seen in the data models provided by the authors of Gym for Free. It was also reported that those who had never used the facilities dropped as well. When Birmingham asked what motivated the residents, most of them said it was the cost. Gym for Free explains this more with this quote: “When asked what prompted them to join the Gym for Free scheme, 51% of participants mentioned the free membership. When asked about the importance of free access, 86% mentioned that this was very important or important, 6% mentioned that they were not sure or did not respond to this question, and only 8% of participants mentioned that free access was not important.” (6). Another source quotes this importance of free gym access with this quote: “Some studies comparing participation rates before and after the introduction of free offers have reported increases in participation, while another found that increased charges were associated with a small decline in participation.” (BMJ journals). This shows that the gym being free is a major component to the rising of public health. The more members go to the gym, the higher public health rates are. When this data is taken all together, it is safe to assume that when cost is removed for the gym, exercise participation increases majorly; this has a positive implication for physical, mental, and community wellbeing.

As shown, the authors of this piece clearly identify the lack of exercise as a key contributor to poor health in the public for lower-income areas, but if they are to focus only on the personal behavior, it neglects the social barriers that residents of lower-income areas face. Free and publicly accessible gyms not only foster better public health rates but also send a broader message that health is a right, not a privilege. Investing in free gyms for lower-income areas can be seen as a potential financial burden, but this may not be the case. Implementing free gyms will help build better community resilience and reduce long-term health costs. Put short, implementing free gyms is not just about removing financial barriers but also an issue of opportunity and equity. By offering free gyms in communities that have for the longest time been under-supported, society may be able to move closer and ensure that all people, regardless of situations or backgrounds, can have an equal opportunity to make sure they are healthy and well taken care of in the community they call their home.