Does More Time In The Gym Always Mean Better Results?

I've been reading quite a bit lately about whether we actually need to spend hours in the gym to make good progress.

It got me thinking...

A lot of us have probably gone through the stage of believing that if an hour is good, then two hours must be even better.

I know I did.

I'd add extra exercises, throw in a few more sets, and leave feeling completely exhausted, convinced I'd had a brilliant workout.

Looking back, I'm not so sure.

These days, I'd rather have a focused 60-minute session than spend two hours wandering around the gym doing a bit of everything.

For those of you who've been training for a while...

Have your workouts become shorter and more efficient over the years, or do you still enjoy the longer sessions?

Have you found there's a point where extra time in the gym stops adding much value?

 

Interesting question.

I think a lot of people, especially when they're starting out, judge a workout by how long they were in the gym rather than what they actually achieved.

Sometimes, a well-planned 45–60-minute session with good effort and progression is far more productive than spending two hours chatting, scrolling through your phone between sets, or adding exercises just for the sake of it.

It'll be interesting to hear whether members have naturally shortened their workouts as they've gained experience, or whether longer sessions still work best for them.