4.6 Review

Reflections on Physical Activity and Health: What Should We Recommend?

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 4, Pages 495-504

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2016.01.024

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The health benefits of regular physical activity are irrefutable; virtually everyone can benefit from being active. The evidence is overwhelming with risk reductions of at least 20%-30% for more than 25 chronic medical conditions and premature mortality. Even higher risk reductions (ie, >= 50%) are observed when objective measures of physical fitness are taken. International physical activity guidelines generally recommend 150 minutes per week of moderate-to vigorous-intensity physical activity. A critical review of the literature indicates that half of this volume of physical activity might lead to marked health benefits. There is compelling evidence to support health promotion strategies that emphasize that health benefits can be accrued at a lower volume and/or intensity of physical activity. Public health policies are needed that reduce the barriers to physical activity participation such that everyone can reap the benefits of physical activity. It is also important to highlight that sedentary time (particularly sitting time) carries independent health risks. The simple message of move more and sit less likely is more understandable by contemporary society and is formed on the basis of a strong body of evidence. For practitioners who work directly with clients, it is recommended that an individualized prescription (dosage) that takes into consideration the unique characteristics and needs of the client is provided. Physical activity or exercise promotion should not be done in isolation; it should be part of an integrated approach to enhance healthy lifestyle behaviours.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available