Lead
Richard Gallimore, 23, of Swansea says he replaced a human personal trainer with an AI coaching tool in late 2024 and has since increased his bench press from 70kg to 110kg, calling himself “the strongest I’ve ever been.” In nearby Aberdare, 21-year-old Leah Walsh used AI to prepare for her second half marathon and recorded a personal-best time of 2:11, one minute faster than the previous year. Both users cite cost, convenience and 24/7 access as reasons for choosing algorithm-driven plans. Local personal trainer Dafydd Judd, 37, welcomes AI as a learning aid but stresses that in-person accountability and human connection remain important.
Key Takeaways
- Richard Gallimore (23, Swansea) reports his bench press rose from 70kg (150lb) to 110kg (240lb) after following an AI-generated training and nutrition programme.
- Leah Walsh (21, Aberdare) used an AI tool to create an 11-week combined running-and-gym plan and completed the Cardiff Half Marathon in 2:11, one minute faster than her prior time.
- A Which? survey (November 2024) found the average UK gym membership costs £38 per month, with chains ranging from £23 to £132.
- Industry research from PureGym indicates personal trainers typically charge about £30–£65 per 45–60 minute session outside London and about £45–£65 in London.
- Trainer Dafydd Judd (37, Cardiff) with 12 years’ experience says AI can accelerate learning but cannot fully replace human accountability and empathetic coaching.
- Users value AI for affordability, on-demand adjustments and the ability to ask questions at any hour, while some miss in-person oversight.
Background
Interest in AI-driven fitness plans has grown alongside wider consumer use of generative and predictive tools. AI platforms can assemble workout progressions, daily nutrition targets and micro-adjustments based on user input, making bespoke plans accessible to people who cannot afford regular one-to-one coaching. That affordability argument is salient in the UK: a November 2024 Which? survey reported an average gym membership of £38 per month, while trainer session fees commonly range in the tens of pounds per session.
Historically, personal trainers have provided individualized programming, real-time technique correction and motivational support. Trainers also often specialise—rehabilitation, older adults or sports performance—and build client relationships that extend beyond raw metric improvements. As AI became more capable of translating training science into schedules, a subset of gym-goers began experimenting with automated plans as a cheaper or more flexible alternative.
Main Event
Richard Gallimore said he turned to an AI tool after a May fundraiser walk made him realise his fitness had declined. Using the app, he received a structured workout and diet plan tailored to his goals and training cadence; he says he now trains about two hours a day and has seen measurable strength gains. Gallimore emphasises cost: with gym fees and supplement bills, he could not afford regular sessions with a trainer, so an AI solution in his pocket felt practical.
Leah Walsh used AI to build an 11-week programme for the Cardiff Half Marathon that blended running workouts with gym sessions, tempo efforts and long runs with time targets. She trimmed the AI schedule to match her lifestyle, praising the ability to ask questions at any time and to make instant adjustments—capabilities she found lacking with traditional coach-client arrangements. Her finishing time of 2:11 represented incremental progress and a personal best compared with the prior year.
Personal trainer Dafydd Judd, who works in Cardiff and has 12 years’ experience, says some clients already use AI tools before or between sessions, which can speed understanding and reduce guesswork. Judd argues AI can be blunt but useful for education; however, he underlines that accountability—showing up, technique feedback and on-the-spot adaptations—still depends on a human coach.
Analysis & Implications
The cases of Gallimore and Walsh highlight two distinct value propositions for AI in fitness: affordability and convenience. For younger adults, especially those balancing work, study and budget constraints, algorithmic plans lower the cost barrier to structured training. This democratization could expand routine exercise adoption, but it also shifts responsibility for adherence and form to the individual.
From an industry perspective, trainers may face pressure to adapt services—integrating AI tools to enhance client education or offering hybrid packages that combine algorithmic programming with periodic in-person coaching. PureGym-style rate data suggest many clients already limit trainer sessions to one or two times weekly; blending AI-generated plans with occasional human oversight could become a common model.
There are risks. Database-driven plans rely on user honesty about experience, injury history and consistency; poor input can produce inappropriate progressions. Additionally, AI lacks tactile or nuanced movement cues—issues especially relevant for clients recovering from injury or with mobility constraints—so misuse could increase injury risk if users skip professional screening.
Comparison & Data
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Richard’s bench press (before) | 70 kg (150 lb) |
| Richard’s bench press (after) | 110 kg (240 lb) |
| Leah’s Cardiff Half time | 2:11:00 (personal best) |
| Average UK gym membership (Nov 2024) | £38 / month |
| Gym membership range (reported) | £23 — £132 |
| Typical PT rate (outside London) | £30 — £65 / session |
| Typical PT rate (London) | £45 — £65 / session |
The table consolidates the core numeric facts cited by the subjects and recent industry surveys. Those figures illustrate why many users opt for AI: monthly gym costs plus recurring trainer fees can quickly exceed what a single user is willing to pay. That economic arithmetic helps explain early adoption among cost-sensitive gym-goers and recreational runners.
Reactions & Quotes
Users and professionals offered mixed but constructive reactions to AI’s growing role in everyday training.
“I train about two hours a day now — the AI gave me structure and nutrition guidance I couldn’t afford from a trainer.”
Richard Gallimore, AI user
Richard framed AI primarily as an affordable enabler: structured plans, explanations about supplements and the ability to progress at his own pace.
“I liked being able to message the tool anytime — a coach can’t always reply at midnight.”
Leah Walsh, runner
Leah stressed convenience and flexibility, noting she could tweak schedules instantly to balance work and training without waiting for a coach’s reply.
“AI educates and removes guesswork, but it won’t replace the warmth and accountability of a human coach.”
Dafydd Judd, personal trainer
Judd welcomed AI as a complementary resource but maintained that real-world oversight and encouragement remain core to long-term adherence and safety.
Unconfirmed
- Generalisability: It is unconfirmed whether Richard’s strength gains can be replicated by all users following similar AI plans, due to differences in baseline fitness and adherence.
- Long-term injury risk: There is insufficient public data to quantify whether AI-guided programmes increase or decrease injury incidence relative to human coaching.
- Tool specifics: The exact AI apps and algorithms used by the individuals were not independently verified in available reporting.
Bottom Line
AI-driven training tools are proving attractive to cost-conscious and time-pressed gym-goers, offering structured programmes, round-the-clock access and rapid adjustment. For some users, like Richard and Leah, these tools have produced measurable performance gains and convenience benefits that substitute for frequent in-person coaching.
However, the evidence suggests AI is most effective when used alongside human expertise—trainers can provide screening, technique correction and motivational accountability that algorithms cannot replicate. As adoption grows, a hybrid model combining algorithmic planning with periodic human oversight appears likely to be the dominant, safe and scalable path forward.
Sources
- BBC News (news reporting) — original interview and regional coverage of the Swansea and Aberdare cases.
- Which? (consumer organisation) — November 2024 survey on UK gym membership costs and price range.
- PureGym (industry research/company) — data on personal trainer typical rates and client usage patterns.