A Wuhan HILEFIT gym barred a member from training his brother, citing a 30-minute instruction limit. The dispute raises questions about family vs. commercial coaching, paid PT revenue, and membership fairness.
Tags:Source: OT-Team(G), 新浪财经
HILEFIT (乐刻运动), a well-known fitness chain in China, has come under widespread scrutiny after a Wuhan fitness blogger said he was repeatedly stopped from training his own brother at one of the chain’s gyms.
The blogger said he was working out with his brother at HILEFIT’s Wusheng Road Kaide Plaza store in Wuhan when staff and the store manager intervened several times, telling him that his behavior constituted “continuous professional instruction.” He was reportedly later asked to leave the gym, with staff saying they would contact him about cancelling his membership.
The incident quickly triggered widespread discussion online, with many consumers questioning whether a paying member should be prevented from helping a family member exercise when no money is changing hands and no other members are being disturbed.
Are Even Family Members Off-Limits?”
According to the blogger, he and his brother were simply working out together. He said they joked around, spoke in their local dialect and even shared a bottle of water while exercising—what he considered an entirely ordinary family workout.
However, staff repeatedly reminded him that members were not allowed to provide “continuous instruction” for more than 30 minutes, regardless of whether the person being coached was a friend or a family member.
“What upset me most is that we are biological brothers,” the blogger said. “They still stopped us on the grounds that I could not provide guidance for more than 30 minutes. In the end, they even asked us to leave and said staff would contact us about cancelling the membership.”
He questioned whether the same rule would apply if he brought his partner or wife to the gym in the future.
“If I know how to train properly, what is the point of going to the gym if I can't even teach my own family?” he asked.
The blogger stressed that he opposed unauthorized outside personal trainers, commonly referred to in China as “black private trainers,” because they can affect gym operators. But he argued that extending such restrictions to family members was unreasonable.
After he shared his experience on social media, many other users said they had encountered similar situations, including being warned or stopped while helping friends with exercises. In many cases, they said, the explanation ultimately came down to restrictions on outside personal training.
HILEFIT’s Wusheng Road Kaide Plaza store told media that the 30-minute rule is part of Article 9 of its membership agreement and has been in place for a long time.
According to the store, the rule does not constitute a blanket ban on members helping one another. Staff are supposed to intervene only when “continuous instruction” lasts for more than 30 minutes.
The store said the rule serves two main purposes: preventing outside trainers from effectively using the gym as a venue for private lessons, and protecting ordinary members from having equipment and training space occupied by teaching activities.
However, when asked specifically whether unpaid instruction between close family members would be permitted, the store did not provide a clear answer.
Consumers Call the Rule “Unfair”
The controversy has largely centered on two questions: What exactly counts as “continuous instruction,” and why should professional exercise guidance between family members be prohibited?
In practice, consumers argue that the 30-minute threshold can be difficult to apply.
For example, if two brothers work out together for an hour while occasionally correcting each other's form, helping with posture or giving advice between sets, does that constitute “continuous instruction”?
And if a member happens to have professional fitness knowledge or training experience, should that person be prohibited from helping a family member exercise?
Complaints concerning HILEFIT’s restrictions on members coaching friends or relatives have also appeared on Chinese consumer and social-media platforms. Some users said they had been warned even when they were simply exercising with friends.
For many consumers, preventing unauthorized commercial trainers from operating inside a gym is understandable. But they argue that treating ordinary, unpaid assistance between members as private training goes too far.
Some users have even accused HILEFIT of being “unfriendly to people who know how to train” and described the rule as an “unreasonable membership clause.”
Behind the dispute, however, lies a broader commercial issue.
Why Gyms Are So Sensitive About “Training” Inside Their Facilities
A longtime fitness-industry insider told media that, in the traditional gym business, membership fees essentially provide access to the facilities, while personal training is often a major source of high-margin revenue.
A standard personal training session can cost roughly RMB 200–500, while specialized sessions such as boxing or stretching can reach RMB 600–800 per class. A handful of sessions can therefore generate revenue comparable to a member's annual membership fee.
Industry data cited in the discussion suggests that personal training can account for more than 60% of revenue at some traditional large fitness clubs, while membership fees account for around 25%.
From a gym operator's perspective, allowing outside trainers to provide lessons—or allowing members to establish regular “free coaching” arrangements—could potentially divert demand away from paid personal training.
There are also safety and liability concerns. Outside trainers are not contracted by the gym and may not be subject to the same qualification or management requirements. If a member is injured during training, determining responsibility could become complicated.
The problem is that ordinary, unpaid advice between members can be difficult to distinguish from commercial personal training in real-world situations.
When a gym applies its anti-outside-trainer rules too strictly, ordinary interactions between friends and relatives can therefore become collateral damage.
More Than 7,000 Complaints—and Ongoing Personal Training Disputes
The “brothers training together” incident is not the only controversy surrounding HILEFIT.
As of publication, China's Black Cat Complaints platform showed 7,186 complaints involving HILEFIT, covering issues including personal training services, membership refunds and service standards. Personal training was among the most frequently disputed areas.
One consumer claimed that after purchasing personal training sessions through HILEFIT and attending classes at a franchised location, relations with the trainer deteriorated after the consumer refused to purchase another 50-session package that would allegedly help the trainer “level up.”
The consumer said the trainer subsequently stopped communicating about fitness goals and training plans, cancelled the next day's session and refused to continue providing training, instead asking the customer to switch trainers.
Other consumers have also questioned the quality of some trainers' guidance, saying that despite paying for personal training, they felt the instruction was not sufficiently professional.
HILEFIT has also faced criticism from franchisees. One former franchisee told media that he and his partner invested at least RMB 1.2 million before eventually closing the gym early and suffering heavy losses. He claimed that opening an independently operated gym of a similar size would have cost around RMB 500,000, while HILEFIT's renovation and equipment quotations were higher than market prices.
According to the franchisee, only a small proportion of stores were actually profitable, while many were operating at a loss.
Another issue is the income structure of HILEFIT trainers. According to the information provided, many trainers reportedly receive no basic salary or social insurance and rely primarily on group-class hours and personal-training sales for income.
Such a model can naturally create strong incentives to prioritize sales alongside instruction. When trainers face significant pressure to sell personal training packages, they may also become particularly sensitive to activities that could reduce demand for paid training—even when those activities involve nothing more than one brother helping another.
The dispute over two brothers working out together may therefore appear to be a small conflict over gym rules. But it also highlights a larger tension between member rights, gym management, personal-training revenue and the commercial incentives built into the fitness industry's business model.