I’ve spent more than two decades teaching indoor cycling. I’ve coached in big gyms and small studios, trained instructors around the world and built my own studio, Cadence, around a simple belief: when taught properly, indoor cycling is one of the safest, most effective, most inclusive forms of exercise there is. 

A growing proportion of what we see isn’t designed for the people in the room. It’s designed to look good on a screen.

It works for people returning from injury. It works for older adults. It works for beginners, endurance athletes and everyone in between. It builds strength, cardiovascular fitness and confidence without the impact that puts so many people off exercise in the first place. 

It’s why I’m increasingly concerned about what the industry is presenting as ‘indoor cycling’ today. 

Right now, a growing proportion of what we see – and what’s being rewarded – isn’t designed to make people fitter, stronger or healthier. It isn’t even designed for the people in the room. It’s designed to look good on a screen.  

That’s a huge issue, because what goes viral on social media isn’t what makes a good indoor cycling class. To the contrary, in many cases it represents the least achievable, least effective, least safe version of this wonderful discipline. But the more it dominates our feeds, the more it distorts public understanding of what indoor cycling actually is – and who it’s for. 

Built for cameras, not bodies 

The style of cycling that dominates Instagram and TikTok is not designed to be followed. It’s designed to be watched. It’s built for the camera, not for the bodies in the room.  

I talk about ‘podium performers’ as opposed to indoor cycling instructors and it’s an important distinction to make, because what we’re seeing on social media isn’t indoor cycling. It’s podium performance: very high cadences, low resistance and choreography that looks impressive on screen but makes no biomechanical sense on a bike. Hands off the bars. Excessive twisting. Double-time riding at 120+ RPM. It’s all spectacle with very little substance – education making way for entertainment.  

I often describe it as the fast food of fitness: it feels exciting in the moment, but there’s no depth to it. No nourishment. No longevity. It’s a degraded version of the discipline where coaching, structure and safety are removed – the three things that make indoor cycling so effective in the first place. 

Yes, instructors need to demonstrate rhythm. But their primary role is still to observe, adapt and coach the room in front of them.

And from a physiological point of view, this style of riding simply doesn’t do what people think it does. There’s a persistent myth that pedalling faster burns more calories. In reality, calorie burn is driven by power output, not cadence. Spinning your legs quickly with minimal resistance keeps power low and muscle engagement negligible. You might sweat, but you’re not getting stronger, fitter or more resilient. 

Over time, it can also be damaging. Sustained high-cadence, low-resistance riding places unnecessary stress on joints and connective tissue – the equivalent of running downhill for an entire session.  

Coaches vs performers 

But the physical consequences are only part of the story. The deeper issue is cultural. 

In almost every other group exercise discipline, instructors are coaches. Yoga teachers don’t spend the class showing off advanced poses while the room struggles behind them. Boxing coaches don’t spar while participants watch. CrossFit coaches don’t perform the workout instead of teaching it. 

Indoor cycling should be no different. Yes, instructors need to be on the bike. Yes, they need to demonstrate rhythm and technique. But their primary role is still to observe, adapt and coach. To programme for the room in front of them. 

What I’m seeing instead is instructors abandoning coaching altogether. Classes are getting bigger, the podium higher, and with that comes a disconnect. Cadences go up, choreography gets more complex and instructors plough on regardless of who is or isn’t keeping up. Their cries from the podium become empty self-help novels – “You’ve got this!” or “Set your intentions for the day!” – as opposed to intelligently coaching riders through the detail of each phase.  

When instructors and studios build personal brands at the expense of those in the room, that isn’t innovation. It’s neglect.

“3, 2, 1, sprint!” sets their riders off, pedalling at furious RPMs without any further guidance. What it should be – what it is at Cadence: “We’re going to increase our watt output for 45 seconds. I want you to ride at 10 out of 10 effort, in the saddle, at a cadence of 85 – so essentially, that will be the highest gear you can hold at 85 RPM.” That’s a sprint.   

When this doesn’t happen, the result is exclusion, not aspiration. People feel lost, unsafe or embarrassed. Many decide that indoor cycling isn’t for them, which is tragic as it should be one of the most accessible forms of exercise we offer. At Cadence, I coach people who are pregnant, returning from surgery, managing long-term health conditions or coming back to fitness after years away. Done properly, indoor cycling is scalable, supportive and empowering. 

But that’s not the story social media is telling. It’s perpetuating the myth that indoor cycling is only for the young and hyper-fit – and it’s putting off precisely the people who would benefit from it the most.  

Online isn’t the problem 

Let me be clear: online delivery is not the issue. I create long-form indoor cycling classes online myself. I’ve done so for years and I finally launched my own YouTube channel last year. When classes are properly programmed and clearly coached, digital channels can make great indoor cycling accessible to more people than ever. That’s my goal: I want to give more people a chance to discover what good indoor cycling is. 

The problem comes when social media is used as a stage – a marketing platform. It’s the difference between delivering great, full-length, evidence-based classes online and chasing the Instagram or TikTok algorithm with clickbait class snippets that sell a vibe. It’s instructors and studios using in-person classes as content factories, filming unsafe riding that prioritises visibility over responsibility, building personal brands at the expense of the people in the room. 

This isn’t innovation. It’s neglect. And it creates a vicious cycle, because other instructors copy what’s loudest online, often exaggerating it further. Studios recruit on personality above all else, with little regard for education, scientific knowledge, programming or coaching skill. Properly trained instructors get drowned out because they don’t look as flashy on screen. And consumers end up not knowing the difference between good indoor cycling and what they see on social media. 

Shrinking the audience 

One of the great ironies here is that real indoor cycling looks terrible on social media. A brilliantly coached class – where riders are progressing, learning about power and getting fitter – doesn’t translate well into a 15-second clip. The atmosphere in the room might be electric, but on camera it looks flat, repetitive and unremarkable. 

It’s why the best studios often shout the least. At Cadence, we don’t film our classes; they speak for themselves. We believe social media should be an invitation, not the product. A bit like a film trailer: enough to convey the feeling, not the entire plot. 

If your studio can’t attract anyone over 30, it’s not a mystery – and from a commercial point of view, it should be a serious concern

Once you start putting your class content on social media, you unwrap the present before anyone’s arrived. Worse still, if the class is unachievable, you put people off before they’ve even stepped through your door. 

Trust is central here. When people walk into a studio, they’re placing themselves in someone else’s hands. If the experience doesn’t match what they were sold, that trust evaporates and they don’t come back. This is happening more and more and our industry is feeling the consequences: indoor cycling’s audience is shrinking while other modalities, Pilates in particular, are booming. 

That’s not because indoor cycling is less effective. It’s because Pilates is widely perceived as coached, considered and safe. Until indoor cycling reclaims those same values and refocuses on results, people will continue to opt out. 

If your studio can’t attract anyone over 30, it’s not a mystery – and from a commercial point of view, it should be a serious concern.  

Where do we go from here? 

Indoor cycling deserves better than clickbait, as do the people riding our bikes, so allow me to end with some heartfelt advice.  

To instructors: Remember what actually makes you good. Adaptability. Empathy. Programming. Education. The ability to explain, modify and connect. Knowledge of power, technique and physiology. Complex choreography often masks a lack of understanding. Simplicity is sophistication. 

Riders, please don’t be put off. Find a properly programmed class where you’re coached, not performed at.

To studio owners: Don’t be bullied by what’s loud online. There is a huge space for proper teaching. Invest in team training. Use experienced master trainers. Think about who you want through your doors – and who your current offer might be excluding. 

To marketing teams: Stop using classes as content. Sell the feeling, not the footage. Show community, progression, confidence, belonging. Leave the class itself as the experience people come to discover. 

And to riders: Please don’t be put off. Done well, indoor cycling is intelligent, inclusive and transformative, delivering substantial strength, fitness and performance gains. Find a properly programmed class where you’re coached, not performed at.