What Does Wilma Flintstone Have to Teach Smith
College?
An examination of Olin Fitness Center from a sustainability standpoint as well as propositions
for making the facility “greener”
Collette Roy
Environmental Science and Policy
Spring 2010
Roy 2
Smith College’s undertaking to become carbon neutral by 2030 has led to a careful examination
of our facilities, buildings, and the general way the college operates. We are starting to see ways
to reach this goal by thinking outside the box. I chose to examine the amount of energy being
expended in Smith College’s Olin Fitness Center and research ways to make the facility more
sustainable. I found that the majority of the patrons (97%) are exercising while being entertained
by at least one form of media (i.e. TVs attached to machines, iPods, magazines, etc.). The
behavioral data I collected showed interesting trends in media usage that I then analyzed for
energy consumption per media device and compared this with the energy requirements of the
actual machines. This project inspired me to think about ways to change behavioral trends of the
Olin Fitness Center patrons though educational projections and inexpensive “energy-saver”
stickers. While I found many options for more energy efficient machines through either
retrofitting what we already have or replacing with more sustainable models, I came to the
conclusion that the only thing the college would be gaining is the so called “cool factor.” I
believe that promise lies in implementing low-tech fixes to alter patron’s behaviors that may save
the same amount of energy as would be saved if the machines were replaced. The
recommendations based on my findings include educating on energy use of a traditional gym in
addition to promoting exercise outdoors.
Introduction
The Olin Fitness center is a $4 million dollar, 4,800 square foot facility which opened its
doors in 2004. This facility can accommodate approximately 100 people working out
simultaneously and is open 80 hours a week. I chose to examine the facility for my
Environmental Science and Policy seminar because I found that most people have never
considered the potentially harmful environmental repercussions of using a fitness center. More
Roy 3
often than not, people focus solely on the fact that they are doing something good for themselves
and are therefore able to justify using the facility without feeling guilty. Or it could just be that
they have never thought about the environmental impacts of maintaining such a facility. Not
unlike other aspects of everyday life that are overlooked for their environmental implications,
fitness centers are a habitat that people come to seeking an escape from daily routine where they
can instead focus on improving their bodies.
In general, the cardio equipment at most gyms in the world require a power source in
order to function correctly. There are different levels of power requirements for different pieces
of machinery but most commercial models require at least some energy to operate the display
and control the resistance/incline. Olin currently is home to 11 stationary bikes, 12 treadmills, 14
Life Fitness cross trainers, and 2 Precor cross trainers. These 39 machines are all outfitted with
televisions except the 2 Precor cross trainers. In addition to the approximately 50 watts it takes to
power the televisions on each machines, one must also consider the energy lost due to lighting
and air conditioning. If you also factor in the amount of plastic water bottles, waste generated to
clean the machines, and the amount of water used for drinking (let alone showering plus washing
the sweat towels and machine wipe-down towels) - the energy demands of a gym quickly appear
to be a lot higher than we would like and certainly too high to ignore.
I believe that it is not enough to just blindly use the facility without asking what such
actions are doing to the environment. Because of this, I chose to investigate: how Olin can
become more “green;” how much energy is used by the cardio machines; and what some
alternatives are to obtaining exercise in a gym. The specific objective of my research became
educating the patrons of Olin Fitness Center about the environmental ramifications of their
Roy 4
workout as well as proposing alternatives based on what other more sustainable gyms around the
world have done.
Methodology
Research into alternatives to traditional gyms
I began my research into alternatives to traditional gyms by learning about the different
machine types we currently have present in Olin Fitness Center. I looked online at the product
description and learned as much as I could about each machine type. Then, I met with Teresa
Collins (Athletic Facilities Manager) to discuss Smith College’s budget for buying new machines
as well as repairing old ones. She was very helpful and knowledgeable about the equipment.
After I collected information about the machines we have now, I researched alternative “green”
machine types on the internet.
The next portion of my research went into finding concrete examples of how other gyms
around the world manage to be green. I mainly gleaned my information from the internet.
However, Dano Weisbord (Sustainability Director) assisted in my research by telling me about
the company ReRev and the recent work the company did with Williams College. Dano
Weisbord put me in contact with the director of sustainability at Williams College and I was able
to get information on the specifics of implementing retrofitted machines at their college.
Behavioral observations of patrons of Olin Fitness Center
During the 1st week of April, 2010, I collected observational data of people working out
on the cardio equipment. I collected data in the morning, afternoon and evening. I recorded the
sex of the patron, what type of machine was being used, and the entertainment choice. The
choices for entertainment were categorized thusly: television, music, music and television, and
Roy 5
reading. I also made note of televisions that were left on without anyone utilizing the machine. I
used Microsoft Excel for analysis of my data and graph making.
Results
Research into alternatives to traditional gyms
The machines we currently have in Olin Fitness center (Table 1) cost between $35006000 when bought new. The annual budget for purchasing new cardio equipment is $20,000
while the budget to repair broken machines is $15,000 (Personal comment, T. Collins). I was
informed that there is a weekly maintenance man who performs routine weekly cleaning and
preventative maintenance. All of the 39 machines we currently house at Olin are equip with a
television, except for the 2 Precor brand cross trainers. The two Precor trainers are being
replaced in the near future by television topped models, according to Collins.
The machine type that requires the least amount of energy to run, are the stationary bikes.
These machines are self-powered to light up the display and the only reason they need electricity
is for the televisions. The Life Fitness cross trainers require more electricity, requiring a typical
122 amp plug to operate both the machines display and certain functions such as incline and
resistance in addition to the energy requirements of the television. The most energy inefficient
machine we have is the treadmill. These machines require a special 220 amp “dedicated plug”
which is comparable in energy usage to a refrigerator. All in all, the energy requirements of our
machinery are very large indeed.
I found that a typical 30 minute workout can generate approximately 50 watts of useable
energy if the correct technology is in place to harness it, however none of our machines are
currently able to store the energy generated during a workout. I attempted to measure the
Killowatt hours used during a workout but the meter I used did not generate any useable results.
Roy 6
This is attributed to the fact that the cords I could access were for the TVs and not the machines.
The cardio machines are actually plugged in under the floor. According to some research I
found on the carbon footprint of gyms, a gym of Olin’s size (approximately 5,000 square feet)
generates on average 3.12 pounds of carbon emissions per square foot (Figure 3). The cost of this
large of a carbon footprint is hard to measure exactly.
The most innovative alternative to traditional gyms I found was The Green Microgym
located in Portland, Oregon. This gym is both the most environmentally sustainable in terms of
their carbon foot print (Table 2) and in the ability of the cardio machines to turn the energy
generated during a work out into usable power for the gym. Every piece of cardio equipment has
the capability to store the energy generated during a work out so it can be used to power the
gyms lights, ceiling fans, and televisions. The Green Microgym has solar panels, low-flow
toilets, and recycled floors among other “green” technology, bringing the environmental impact
of the gym to negligible amounts (Green Microgym). Another innovative gym which follows the
same types of principles is the “California Fitness” chain of gyms in Hong Kong.
ReRev is the company Dano Weisbord told me about. I looked up information on the
company online and found that it was started by an engineering graduate student in Gainsville, Fl
(ReRev). The company specializes in cheap retrofitting of Precor brand cardio machines by
installing a converter that takes the kinetic energy created during a workout and makes it into
power. ReRev takes kinetic energy generated during a workout and transforms it into DC power
which then runs through a special converter to produce useable renewable energy. The company
estimates that a typical 30 minute workout produces 50 watts of electricity which can be turned
into 18.2 Kilowatts of electricity. This amount will power one CFL bulb for 2.5 hours, a cell
phone for 6 full charges, a laptop for 1 hour, or a desktop for 30 minutes (ReRev). One machine
Roy 7
can thereby save around 4,380 liters of Co2 release per year. However, Williams College just
spent $14,000 to retrofit their machines and the greatest benefit according to Stephanie Boyd,
the sustainability director, has been the “cool factor,” or the publicity they generated with
making the change. ReRev estimated a 7 year pay back in energy savings but Stephanie Boyd
thinks it will be longer to see any savings.
Behavioral observations of patrons of Olin Fitness Center
I found that Olin Fitness Center is most highly populated in the morning and evening,
with a lull in the afternoon. However, the distribution of machine use was very consistent
throughout the day and I found the following trend: the majority of people prefer to use the Life
Fitness brand cross trainer with 50% of my total observed gym patrons exercising on these types
of machines out of the total observations taken, regardless of time of day (Figure 1). The next
most frequented piece of equipment was the treadmills, which were used by 33% of the total
observed gym patrons. The stationary bikes were used by 15% of the observed individuals while
the 2 Precor cross trainers were only used 2% of the time. All of the machines are outfitted with
televisions except the 2 Precor cross trainers which leads me to the conclusion that they are not
getting used because they don’t have an attached television.
As you can see in Figure 2, 76% of the individuals observed were watching TV during
their workout which is unsurprising given the fact that this is the most accessible entertainment
option for people (and requires the least space taken up in a gym bag since you only have to
bring your headphones). Music players constituted 28% of the exercising population while 15%
used both a music player and the TV. This behavior seems like the worst energy consuming of
them all. The most alarming observation was when I witnessed a Smith student watching a
movie on her laptop which she has placed on top of the control panel of a cross trainer, while the
Roy 8
TV was on behind it. In addition to this extreme type of behavior (the blind usage of multiple
electronic gadgets for entertainment during a workout) there is also the fact that every time I
made observations throughout the week, at least 2 televisions were on without anyone using the
machines.
Table 1: Cardio machines at the Olin Fitness Center. Price ranges obtained from Teresa Collins.
Machine Type
Cross Trainer
Cross Trainer
Treadmill
Stationary Bicycle
Brand
Life Fitness
Precor
Life Fitness
Life Fitness
Number at Olin
14
2
12
11
Cost When New
$3800-4200
$3500-4500
$5200-6000
$2800-4200
60
50
40
# of
individuals
30
Morning
20
Evening
Afternoon
10
0
TM
SB
CT
PC
Machine Type
Figure 1: This graph illustrates a week of observations taken of cardio equipment usage. This
data was collected over the course of a typical week in the spring. The cross trainers (CT) are the
most highly populated machines in the entire facility, regardless of time of day.
(TM: Treadmill; SB: Stationary Bike; CT: Cross Trainer or elliptical; PC: Precor).
Roy 9
Music
TV
Music and TV
Figure 2: This graph illustrates the media usage of Olin Fitness Center’s patrons. As you can see,
the majority of people were watching television (76%). The other two categories, music (28%)
and both music and TV (15%) make up the remainder of the chart. I did not include reading
since this activity doesn’t require any energy.
Figure 3: This graph illustrates the differences in total carbon emissions per square foot for
different sized gyms. Olin is a 4,000 square foot facility which on this graph correlates to
emission amounts of somewhere between 13 and 19 pounds of carbon per square foot (Green
Microgym).
Roy 10
Table 2: In this table, we can see the differences in emissions of traditional gyms compared with
The Green Microgym. (Green Microgym).
Discussion
Studying Smith College’s Olin Fitness Center through both behavioral observations and
outside research has led me paint a better picture of the facility in terms of what can be done to
move towards more sustainable practices. Small changes towards sustainability have been made
this semester at the facility such as the replacing of paper towels with washable rags to wipe
down the machinery. However, the reduced paper trash may actually not be worth the extra
water now required to wash the rags. This small change is not enough to reduce the carbon
footprint of the gym system. The behavioral data I collected over the week long survey,
confirmed my suspicion that people prefer to use machines with televisions. However, I also
think an important finding was the trend in machine usage. If the Life Fitness models are the
preferred cardio machine, this should be taken into account when purchasing new equipment. I
can’t say for sure if it would be in the college’s best interest to replace the models we have now
with more energy efficient models. Currently, there are no companies that retrofit Life Fitness
brand machines with similar converters as ReRev and since the only 2 Precor machines are not
popular (because they lack TVs?) and are being phased out, this is not an option. Rerev is a great
company and I think what they are doing is a wonderful way to utilize the kinetic energy created
Roy 11
during a workout. Eventually it would be great if we could figure out a way to harness the kinetic
energy generated by the machines (shout out to engineering students..) but shifting paradigms is
a more feasible option and more than likely will create larger changes in the long run than
technological fixes (Meadows, 2010).
My research into The Green Microgym offered interesting ideas that could be used at the
very least to educate the patrons of Olin about alternatives to traditional gyms. In the unlikely
event Smith College decides to remake Olin to be more sustainable (i.e. replacing the machines
we have with self-powering models, taking the TVs off, figuring out a way to harness the kinetic
energy generated during a workout, etc), The Green Microgym should be used as a model.
Obviously, this is not going to happen and the smallest amount of money that can generate the
greatest amount of change should be used. All combined, the budget for maintaining the old and
buying new machines is a very large amount of money (~$35,000) that in essence, perpetuates
the energy inefficiency of a system that doesn’t necessarily have to follow this form. Perhaps in
the future, part of the budget can be dedicated to increasing the environmental sustainability of
the gym but as it is now, there is little room for change. I believe that by attempting to think
outside the “green technological-fix” mindset and instead focus on innovative approaches to
change behavior during workouts, Smith College will not only get “cool factor” points but save
money and resources as well. In order to truly change behaviors so that people take into
consideration the environmental impact of daily actions, there needs to be a reconnection with
our biophilia or a person’s natural biological attraction to nature (Orr, 2004).
Recommendations
Based on my findings, I recommend the most sustainable action is to educate the patrons
of Olin about the alternatives to working out in the gym facility. This education could be a
Roy 12
simple PowerPoint slide show projected onto the wall in front of the cardio machines with
information about the energy requirements of the machines and entertainment devices as well as
ideas for getting exercise outdoors. Smith College campus is beautiful and has lots of paths to
run on, not including the outdoor track. If options for exercise around campus were more
publicized, the college would defiantly reduce at least a portion of its carbon footprint by not
having so many people on the cardio machines. Getting exercise outdoors has been found to
lower stress levels more so than getting an indoor workout and has many other therapeutic
benefits. I believe that people would be willing to change their habits if they knew more about
the impact working out has on the environment in terms of energy usage. If there was more
awareness about other options on campus for getting exercise (such as biking, kayaking, hiking,
to name a few), undoubtedly, there would be less people using the gym. I recommend an
initiative be made to use part of the $20,000 equipment budget for a year (or find more money
somewhere…) and purchase a set of bikes and rollerblades that could be checked out through
Olin, thereby providing people with the means to obtain their cardio workout outdoors. And
while this may not be feasible for everyone due to knee problems or other health issues, (not to
mention the New England winters making outdoor exercise only feasible during warm months),
small behavioral changes will make a difference in the long run.
Another inexpensive recommendation would be to design and order stickers to place on
the TVs of all the machines, akin to the green “Smith Conserves, Save Energy. Please turn off
when leaving” stickers on the light switches around campus. These stickers could have a simple
saying such as: “Smith Conserves, Save Energy. Please make sure your TV is off when you are
done with your work out and be mindful about the energy you are using while you burn
calories.” A quick energy saving trick would be to require the workers in the gym to make
Roy 13
rounds and turn off TVs without anyone on them. Another idea would be to put gold stars on the
most environmentally friendly/ sustainable machines in the facility (i.e. the stationary bikes). As
a final proposal, I think it would be great if we could dedicate a portion of the gym to the most
energy efficient machines and make it the “green” workout central and see how people respond
to that (people like to be “green” and may use a different machine that uses less energy). Also, if
there was room in the budget to purchase one or two self powered machines or machines able to
store the kinetic energy created during a workout, they could be the beginning of a “pilot
program” which would show Olin’s patrons that green machines do exist. These
recommendations will allow Smith to encourage “greener” behaviors while buying time to
design and budget long term solutions on our path to carbon neutrality.
Literature Cited
“Green Microgym.” 2010. < http://thegreenmicrogym.com/> Accessed on April 15th, 2010.
Meadows, D.H. 2010. “Leverage points: places to intervene in a system”. Solutions 1:41-49.
Orr, D.W. 2004. Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect. Island
Press, Washington, DC.
“ReRev.” 2010. < http://rerev.com/> Accessed on April 15th, 2010.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Professor David Smith, for offering me guidance and letting me bounce
ideas off him for my project in addition to encouraging me to always question in class. Thank
you to Dano Weisbord for telling me about ReRev and offering me advice on how to proceed
after I collected behavioral data. And finally, I would like to thank Teresa Collins for giving me
the budget and cost of machines as well as coming up with the “pilot program” idea.