what does it mean to be physically active

Introduction

Definitions in educational settings, research, and policy are important for various reasons. Definitions fix boundaries on phenomena and processes. Definitions also inform policy. Choices about whether to intervene in a wellness or social problem depend on how the trouble is framed and what measures are used to understand the problem. However, definitions can exist contentious and confusing. In a review of literature, Frérot et al. (2018) found 102 (English) definitions of "epidemiology" and highlighted the evolving nature of the definition over time. Likewise recently, a Sedentary Behavior Research Network conducted a literature review to gather "any evidence of inconsistencies, differences, conflicts, or concerns over variations in definitions" of sedentary beliefs and related terms (Tremblay et al., 2017). In aiming to produce a consensus definition of sedentary beliefs, the inquiry group found at to the lowest degree 12 definitions of "sedentary behavior" being used in the bookish literature.

Rorty (1999) notes that we define the way nosotros practice "because of our needs and interests" (p. xxvi). In this vein, equally a researcher involved in physical activity, sport studies, and health promotion, I have witnessed over the last decade increasing attention and interdisciplinarity in the area of "concrete action". As such, it seems an opportune moment to critique some of the taken-for-granted ideas which inform and guide educational settings, research, and policy about physical activity. Schiappa (2003) argues that all definitions are linguistic propositions and as such are historically situated, "and the beliefs that inform definitions are human beliefs that are always subject to revision…" (p. 9). At that place is an credible inadequacy in the existing dominant definitions of concrete activity to account for its complexity. Therefore, this conceptual analysis presents a new, broader definition which might provide opportunities for physical activeness to be understood in a more ethical and holistic style. On this point, Schiappa (2003) notes there is infinite to consider the ethical and normative ramifications of the act of defining, and that problems faced by citizens might be amend addressed with the acknowledgment that definitions are rhetorically induced social knowledge. And then what follows here is not an argument for the exclusion of traditional definitions of concrete action. Withal, by offering a change to the orthodox definition, teachers, students, researchers, and policy makers tin reverberate on the strengths and limitations of various definitions. Farther, we might more appropriately connect the language we apply with the physical activity we are concerned with.

Physical Action—the Predominant Definition

To contextualize the status quo regarding definitions of physical activity, I trace the origin and growth of the nigh widely accepted definition, published by Caspersen et al. (1985). They define physical action as "whatsoever actual movement produced by skeletal muscles that results in free energy expenditure" (p. 126). This definition produces a very specific fashion of understanding concrete activeness. The focus on "skeletal muscles" and "energy expenditure" frames physical activity as a specific mechanistic deed. This is illustrated by the emphasis immediately post-obit the definition where the authors focus on how free energy is measured:

The amount of energy required to accomplish an activeness can exist measured in kilojoules (kJ) or kilocalories (kcal); iv.184 kJ is substantially equivalent to 1 kcal (1). Technically, the kJ is preferred considering it is a measure of free energy expenditure; yet, historically the kcal, a measure of oestrus, has been employed more than often (pp. 126-127).

This definition is widely used and accepted within the inquiry community. The article by Caspersen et al. (1985) has been cited 9490 times in Google Scholar (at the time of writing), an indication of its popularity. This definition informs many health policies around the earth (Australian Authorities Department of Health, 2011; World Wellness Organisation, 2018; Uk Chief Medical Officers, 2019), as well every bit academic textbooks (Biddle and Mutrie, 2001; Hardman and Stensel, 2003), and journals (Howley, 2001; Haseler et al., 2019). There does not appear to accept been published assay or critique of this dominant definition of physical activeness, except for some small variations of the definition, explained below.

Small Variations of the Definition

There are small variations on this definition. In 2018, the World Health Organization'southward (WHO) Global Strategy on Concrete Activity deployed a slight variation of Caspersen'south definition. Instead of activity resulting in free energy expenditure, the WHO referred to bodily movement that "requires energy expenditure" (2018, p. xiv).

Variations tin can also occur past the same author. The US Surgeon Full general's study (U. S. Department of Health Human Services, 1996) defined physical activity as

bodily move produced by the contraction of skeletal muscle that increases energy expenditure to a higher place the basal level (p. xx, italics added).

However, on the next page of their study in a glossary, physical activity was defined equally:

actual movement that is produced past the contraction of skeletal musculus and that substantially increases energy expenditure (p. 21, italics added).

Sometimes slight additions are present. In 1995 the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Statement inserted "wellness benefits" into the definition of physical activity:

"bodily motion produced past skeletal muscles that requires free energy expenditure' and produces salubrious benefits" (National Institutes of Health, 1995, p. three, italics added).

The idea that all physical action produces good for you benefits is open to critique, since activities such equally overtraining, repetitive strain, and physical gainsay might all count every bit physical activeness but do not necessarily produce health benefits for all. Any definition should therefore avoid absolute claims nearly the benefits of concrete action on health promotion.

I argue here that these small variations to the 1985 definition all focus on bodily movement, skeletal muscles and free energy expenditure. Among them all, the sentiment remains the same. The 1985 definition, and the pocket-sized variations of it are confined to, and thereby constrained by, epidemiology discourse. Indeed, the introductory sentence by Caspersen is "The epidemiological study of any concept or outcome requires that the item under investigation be defined and measured" (p. 126). By describing the "elements" of physical activity, the focus is on "bodily movement, skeletal muscles, energy expenditure, kilo-calories" and a positive correlation with "physical fettle" (p. 127). Consequently, the definition proposed by Caspersen is heavily laden with biomedical values, to the exclusion of much else. While Caspersen's definition of physical action may be advisable for certain epidemiological studies, it does not do justice to physical activeness outside of that specific domain.

The Case for Alter

What follows is an attempt to promote definitional "rupture" (Schiappa, 2003). The hope is to move the definition of concrete activity from its entrenchment in epidemiological and biomedical discourse and toward a more inclusive, holistic usage which accounts for the circuitous nature of concrete action. Notwithstanding, any new definition should also be accessible and useful to those involved in epidemiology. In that location is an opportunity to open up up the definition of physical activity to be more inclusive for many groups, including the bookish disciplines that study information technology, the governmental departments that write policy on it, and the range and depth of man experiences which both produce and are produced by it.

The Narrowness of the Popular Definition

What follows is a critique of the Caspersen et al. (1985) definition: physical action every bit "any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that results in energy expenditure."

The definition must first exist situated in the specific scientific context and rationale for its creation. The title of Caspersen's commodity is "Physical Activity, Exercise, and Physical Fitness: Definitions and Distinctions for Health-Related Research". As such, the terms are situated in a specific domain (health-related research), and the article aims to "distinguish" between the terms because "they are often confused with one another, and the terms are sometimes used interchangeably" (p. 126). The authors' rationale may have been thoroughly reasonable, though it is important to recognize the discursive boundaries and disciplinary limitations that might be imposed with such aims. By focusing on "health-related research and epidemiology," other inherent aspects of activity such as cognition, concrete literacy, social cohesion, and education, are not accounted for. These aspects volition be discussed in more detail later.

Caspersen et al. suggested that distinguishing between concrete activity, do and fitness would assist "equally an interpretational framework for comparing studies" (p. 126). While this may have been a worthwhile endeavor, the definition has been deployed beyond the realm of written report comparison and has become established as the most popular definition of physical activeness. It is possible of class, but unlikely, that the authors intended the definition for either policy statements, or as a broad, inclusive definition for physical activeness. However, the dominant employ of the narrow definition means that there is no infinite to account for the complex, holistic elements of concrete activity.

Indeed, Caspersen et al. acknowledge the disciplinary boundaries within the article by stating that "The epidemiological study of whatsoever concept or result requires that the detail under investigation be defined and measured" (p. 126). The business of epidemiologists to foreclose affliction and the methodological orthodoxy governing the types of noesis which epidemiology has produced is worth considering. The British Medical Journal supports a definition of epidemiology as "the written report of how often diseases occur in different groups of people and why" (Coggon et al., 2003). By framing physical action in relation to disease-potential and affliction management, much is marginalized and ignored. To illustrate this point, I offering how Pronger (2002) was troubled by the contrast between his feel of his agile childhood and the "technological cognition" inside his university studies in physical education:

"I wrote about 'the powerful source,' the wonder and infinity that I discovered in pond. And I said that when I started to study physical education, that dimension was completely absent from everything we were taught. The technological pedagogy that I was receiving rendered the wonder 2d. And as I survey the array of scientific, government and commercial texts on concrete fitness, I hear only silence in this regard. The technology of physical [fitness] seems deafened to this dimension of life. So the question of secondness here is: what kind of life is produced in such deafness? Just another question likewise arises: what latent possibilities does that silence concord?" (p. 15)

The reason why the Caspersen et al. definition is yet used equally the ascendant and widely accepted definition is due in function to its simplicity and clarity. Thus, there is an opportunity to examine what is silent in the dominant definition of physical activity. There is infinite to acknowledge wellness aspects of physical activity while also emphasizing its complex and multifaceted aspects in a new, broader definition.

The simplicity of the Caspersen definition also belies what is omitted. Each component of the definition will be critiqued for what information technology limits or omits. Outset, the phraseology of "any bodily movement" may be useful in a clinical setting, but it unwittingly depersonalizes action. 2nd, the idea that movement is "produced by skeletal muscles" besides limits the domain of investigation to distinctly narrow biomechanical characteristics, instead of beingness produced by an agentic, motivated human. Third, the argument that physical activeness "results in free energy expenditure" omits all else that can result from, be produced past, or created through physical activity. Therefore, Caspersen's et al. definition is dis-integrated and exclusionary considering it emphasizes some elements—the anatomical and physiological, over others. And and then with this context in mind, there is space to create a more expansive, inclusive, holistic definition of physical activity, which might inform non simply its scientific report, but also contribute to policy statements, the framing of interventions in populations, and the educational activity of the topic in concrete activity, physical teaching and health educational settings.

Inherent Aspects of Physical Activeness

The post-obit considerations are used to fence what physical activity inherently involves and which aspects should be emphasized or included in a definition. While I accept the give-and-take by Caspersen regarding what occurs at the "physiological level" during physical activity, there are numerous inherent qualities of physical activity that need to be acknowledged to more fully express what physical activity is.

Physical Activity Is Inherently Cognitive

Discussions of the mind use dissimilar terms—cognitive/cognitive/psychological/emotional/affect, then on. In whatsoever example, physical activity is so innately intertwined with the human mind as an antecedent (or motivator) of activity, every bit the central processor of the experience, and as beingness responsible for remembering and reflecting on the experience, that to exclude it from a definition renders information technology incomplete. Biddle and Mutrie (2001) note that:

"a great deal of physical action for wellness must be freely called in leisure time or consciously integrated into one's normal daily routine. This, in itself, justifies the increasing importance of studying psychological processes, such as motivation and conclusion making, in physical activity" (p. 7).

Psychological theories to explicate physical activeness behavior abound. Furthermore, from the COM-B theory, to the "behavior alter wheel," to nudging theory (Forberger et al., 2019), psychological theories of motivation have been used to promote physical activity through interventions at a population level (Brand and Cheval, 2019). Psychology therefore is the intervention point to inspire or produce physical action. Inherent psychological components deserve recognition as part of concrete activity as much as (if not more than than) the spending of energy. Policy texts do increasingly mention ideas about mental well-being, but they tend non to devious into aspects of "wonder," as discussed by Pronger (2002). A holistic definition will move beyond "actual movement" to incorporate, appreciate, and celebrate the lived experiences that produce concrete activity.

Physical activity is also a deeply melancholia, emotional activeness. The spectrum of emotions in physical activity range from joy and feelings of empowerment that tin can come from agile games (Lite, 2003), to the potential for humiliation and ache for participants in physical instruction (Sykes and McPhail, 2008). The 1985 definition never mentions cognition or emotion. Appreciating the total range and significance of the emotional aspects of physical activity is therefore imperative to understand physical activity in a rounded mode.

Concrete Activeness Is Inherently Social

Whether information technology is Oxford and Cambridge oarsmen (Hartley and Llewellyn, 1939), Cambridge sportmen (Rook, 1954), or London busmen (Heady et al., 1961), physical activeness is an inherently social (and clearly gendered) activity. As social beings, humans move through infinite in communion with others (such as in protest marches), in competition with others (in sport), out of necessity (for nutrient gathering or employment) or for pleasure (sexual, cathartic or otherwise). These endeavors result in an array of productive, artistic outputs, which should not be underestimated in comparison with the health benefits that tend to dominate academic discourse on physical action. For example, Bairner (2012) noted that the health gains of walking "may well be of secondary importance to the lessons that can be learned from the pedagogies of the street" (p. 373).

Physical Action Is Inherently Situated

It is well-established that physical and cultural spaces shape experiences (Phoenix and Bell, 2019). The means in which these settings tin be described are numerous. Urban-rural, natural-cultural, wild-managed, poor-wealthy, and numerous other varieties of spaces and contexts produce both opportunities and barriers to the types of physical activities that are possible (Collins and Kay, 2014). In plow physical action shapes spaces. There is a symbiotic human relationship between people, activities and spaces (Cherrington and Blackness, 2020).

In the article past Caspersen et al. (1985), the authors do mention that while "the simplest categorization identifies the concrete activity that occurs while sleeping, at work, and at leisure," information technology is as well a "complex behavior … and may be meaningfully partitioned into other categories mutually sectional of each other" (p. 127). This may be appropriate for measuring energy expenditure (equally that was the accent of the article) only there is a disjuncture between the idea of common exclusivity of categories and the at present apparent messy coaction betwixt all manner of pressures and influences on physical action. This can be seen in the growing popularity of systems thinking and ecological approaches to empathise physical activity. These approaches situate physical activeness as taking identify in, and affected by, a broad variety of cultural values, economical conditions and physical settings. Rutter et al. (2019) offering a preliminary assay of the "drivers of physical activity," which might be either synergistic or antagonistic in the production of physical activity. The growing range of systems theories shed light on the complex bug which shape, and in plough are shaped by, concrete action.

Concrete Activity Is Inherently Political

Politics shape the provision and structure of physical activeness. This occurs at many levels, from state resources for public spaces, to traditional ways that concrete activity is provided or promoted. The "political" can also include efforts involved in controlling and judging the activities that people partake in. Therefore, more depth, richness and inclusivity might come from redefining concrete activity to business relationship for its complexities, nuances, and politics. Writers in physical cultural studies argue that man movement can and should be considered from a variety of levels, including "the socio-cultural, discursive, processual, institutional, commonage, communal, corporeal, affective, and subjective" (Silk et al., 2017, p. 1). In parallel to bookish discussions, it is credible that numerous ideas inform state concrete activity promotion including and aside from public health, such as ecology sustainability and education (see Great britain Government, 2019). Making claims about the importance of some reasons over others is an inherently political deed, which requires value judgements about the legitimacy and relative importance of desired benefits.

Past accounting for such depth in a new, broader definition, we can expand both the thinking about physical activeness and policies which are written for it. By irresolute the words used to construct a definition (to include emphasis on the social, psychological and political), we can remove the narrow confines of epidemiological discourse. Further, by examining the reasons for promoting various ideas, we tin critically reflect on motivations that may or may not be in the interests of those targeted by policy interventions (run across Piggin, 2015). Examining the politics of concrete activeness involves asking various questions. Which ideas gain prominence and are emphasized in eventual decisions? Whose ideas are marginalized and omitted from policy discussions? (Piggin, 2019). Policy decisions (and not-decisions) nigh concrete activeness contribute to the dignity, values and life chances of individuals and communities. The rules and values which let and influence activity should be critically appraised, especially since all people are subjected to evaluation and judgements of what are "culturally appropriate" activities (see World Wellness System, 2018). Physical activeness involves an coaction betwixt external factors and internal perspectives, sensibilities, and motivations. This interplay should exist acknowledged in a holistic definition.

What is Physical Activity? a new, Broader Definition

Proposing a new, broader definition of physical activity disrupts the current reductionist (simplistic) explanation of physical action in favor of emphasizing the holistic (complex) nature of information technology. Given the orthodoxy that the Caspersen et al. definition has established, such a disruption might also be very useful. Expanding the definition may illuminate new ways of thinking about concrete activity and open upwards diverse means of teaching, researching and making policy for concrete activity. Academically, it emphasizes interdisciplinarity and inclusion, and provides opportunity to question, critique, celebrate, and create new ways of talking most and thinking most concrete activity. Related to this, questioning the orthodoxy may also be met with significant resistance. Many users of the Caspersen definition may ignore challenges or indeed defend the condition quo.

Understanding more virtually one's own action might also be a benefit of a broader definition. One justification for this is to allow the lived experiences of people to be recognized. The aim is to move beyond the boundaries of epidemiological discourse or disease prevention and toward an acquittance of the dynamic, circuitous, and evolving array of reasons and emotions involved in concrete activity. The new and broader definition is provided below:

Physical activity involves people moving, acting and performing within culturally specific spaces and contexts, and influenced by a unique array of interests, emotions, ideas, instructions and relationships.

This definition was first introduced in the volume The Politics of Physical Action (Piggin, 2019), though this is the get-go time that the diverse justifications are explained in particular. At that place are numerous benefits of an expanded definition.

Kickoff, it prioritizes people moving over muscles moving. Of course, this alter does nevertheless accommodate kinesiologists. Focusing on people moving does also include biomechanical and physiological aspects of activity. However, for the aim of inclusivity, information technology redirects attention to the person rather than skeletal muscles or energy equally kilojoules in the outset instance. An expanded definition emphasizes complexity, the surround and the human being experience. Accommodating the cerebral, affective and situated aspects of concrete action will allow users and teachers of the definition to account for the complexity of physical activity (come across Pronger, 2002). The inclusion of social and cultural contexts and the array of influences allows for the consideration of opportunities and constraints to physical activity.

2nd, by discussing acting and performing also as moving, the definition appreciates the productive and creative potential that comes from physical activity. Singled-out and in contrast with the original definition's emphasis on energy expenditure, the new definition imagines that much more is created through physical activity (such as the outcomes of labor, creative performances and emotional, memorable experiences) than spent. By shifting away from a focus on exertion (measured past technical apparatuses) we can more appropriately acknowledge and appreciate the range of other reasons for people being active.

3rd, by emphasizing inclusivity, complexity, and the holistic, nosotros can problematize the dualism (separation of the mind from the body) which emanates from Caspersen's original definition. Questioning dualism allows the reader to move away from a discourse of the "torso as auto" and incorporate ideas about the "body as self" (come across Whitehead, 2001). As such, a new, broader definition may be particularly useful for introductory university classes on physical action, across a diverseness of disciplines.

Fourth, a new, broader definition might be useful in reframing policy interventions, beyond disease risk as a justification. This is not intended to marginalize the medical aspects of physical activity, though information technology is intended to resist against over-medicalization. This definition might open up new ways of talking about activity, particularly inside a policy sphere. For policy makers, it might elevate rights and values associated with physical activity to a college priority, rather than the health benefits of concrete activity remaining equally the dominant justification for physical action interventions. That is, there is more to health than physical activity, and there is more than to physical action than wellness. It might likewise stimulate novel ways of thinking about the place and meanings of physical action for unlike people and dissimilar sectors of society. As the starting point for research studies information technology might provide impetus toward more inclusive questions and settings for research to accept place.

Fifth, when people move they are influenced past a unique array of interests, emotions, ideas, instructions, and relationships. By acknowledging and prioritizing this, users of the definition can consider the wide range of intrinsic and extrinsic factors that are "unique" to each person's experience of concrete activity. These interests, emotions, ideas, instructions, and relationships (which I fence are omnipresent before, during and subsequently concrete activity) might well exist marginalized when there is a focus on "energy expenditure."

At that place are parallels between the definition presented hither and other disciplines. For writers on physical literacy (who themselves ascertain physical literacy in various ways), the business organisation is often around "the motivation, confidence, physical competence, cognition, and understanding to maintain concrete activity throughout the life form" (Whitehead, 2013). Interestingly, ane systematic review of physical literacy deferred to the WHO definition of physical activity and suggested a relation betwixt the 2 concepts (Edwards et al., 2017).

Discussion

A proposal for a new, broader definition of concrete activity might be discomforting for some users of the Caspersen et al. (1985) definition. However, the variety of benefits from an expanded definition, coupled with the increasing interdisciplinarity of physical activity in the academic and policy spheres, indicates a more than inclusive definition is of import (see Table 1). Physical education, concrete literacy, and physical cultural studies are all disciplines which take attempted to face the complexities inherent within them to forge newer, more useful definitions. There is no apparent reason why the domain of physical activeness has not seen a flourishing variety of definitions. The Caspersen et al. definition does non seem to have been bailiwick to critical scrutiny in the past. Possible reasons include an epidemiological community that is largely satisfied with the definition or a lack of need or desire to business relationship for the holistic nature of physical activity.

Tabular array i. Elements of the Caspersen et al. (1985) definition, compared with the Piggin definition (2019).

While the definition presented here advances the conversation about what concrete activity is, the author does not claim definitional certainty. Indeed, rather than advocating for immediate consensus around this definition, a plurality of definitions is welcomed and encouraged, particularly since by doing so, more than disquisitional conversations tin be held well-nigh what to include and what to leave out. Therefore, rather than consensus, information technology is hoped that this definitional disruption will open space for word and commemoration of what tin can count every bit concrete activity, what contributes to it (beyond calorific energy) and what is created by it. While Edwards et al. (2017) and Tremblay et al. (2017) advocated establishing a "consensus" for their definitions of physical literacy and sedentary behavior, respectively, this commodity argues for the reverse. There is a specific need for a definitional rupture to reframe physical activity to include the variety of inherent aspects that accept traditionally been subjugated in favor of dis-integrated anatomical and physiological aspects. Moving away from reductive simplicity and toward wondrous complication volition likely contribute to a deeper appreciation and more nuanced agreement of physical action.

Author Contributions

JP conceptualized and wrote the paper.

Funding

Open access fee supplied by discretionary inquiry fund at the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University.

Conflict of Interest

The writer declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could exist construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

Bairner, A. (2012). Urban walking and the pedagogies of the street. Sport Educ. Soc. 16, 371–384. doi: 10.1080/13573322.2011.565968

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Biddle, S. J. H., and Mutrie, N. (2001). Psychology of Physical Activity: Determinants, Well-Beingness and Interventions. Oxon: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Brand, R., and Cheval, B. (2019). Theories to explain exercise motivation and physical inactivity: ways of expanding our current theoretical perspective. Front. Psychol. x:1147. doi: x.3389/fpsyg.2019.01147

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Caspersen, C. J., Powell, K. Due east., and Christenson, G. Chiliad. (1985). Physical action, practice, and physical fettle: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep. 100, 126–131

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Cherrington, J., and Black, J. (2020). Spectres of nature in the trail edifice assemblage. Int. J. Sociol. Leisure three, 71–93. doi: ten.1007/s41978-019-00048-west

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Coggon, D., Rose, G., and Barker, D. J. P. (2003). Epidemiology for the Uninitiated, fifth Edn. BMJ Publishing Grouping.

Google Scholar

Collins, M., and Kay, T. (2014). Sport and Social Exclusion. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Edwards, 50., Bryant, A., Keegan, R., Morgan, K., and Jones, A. (2017). Definition, foundations and associations of physical literacy: a systematic review. Sports Med. 47, 113–126. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0560-7

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Forberger, S., Reisch, 50., Kampfmann, T., and Zeeb, H (2019). Nudging to move: a scoping review of the use of option architecture interventions to promote physical activity in the full general population. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Human action sixteen:77. doi: x.1186/s12966-019-0844-z

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Frérot, K., Lefebvre, A., Aho, S., Callier, P., Astruc, G., and Aho Glélé, L. Southward. (2018). What is epidemiology? Changing definitions of epidemiology 1978-2017. PLoS 1 13:e0208442. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208442

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hardman, A. E., and Stensel, D. J. (2003). Physical Activity and Wellness: The Evidence Explained. London: Routledge.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Hartley, P. H.-South., and Llewellyn, G. F. (1939). The longevity of oarsmen: a report of those who rowed in the oxford and cambridge boat race from 1829 to 1928. Br. Med. J. i, 657–662. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.4082.657

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Exciting, J. A., Morris, J. N., Kagan, A., and Raffle, P. A. (1961). Coronary eye disease in London busmen. A progress report with particular reference to physique. Br. J. Prev. Soc. Med. 15, 143–153. doi: x.1136/jech.15.4.143

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Howley, Eastward. T. (2001). Type of activity: resistance, aerobic and leisure versus occupational physical activeness. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 33(Suppl.), S364–S369. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200106001-00005

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Light, R. (2003). The joy of learning: emotion and learning in games through TGfU. J. Phys. Educ. North.Z. 36, 93–108.

Google Scholar

National Institutes of Wellness (1995). Physical Activeness and Cardiovascular Wellness. NIH Consens Statement Online 1995, xviii–20.

Google Scholar

Phoenix, C., and Bell, Due south. (2019). Beyond 'move more': feeling the rhythms of physical action in mid and later-life. Soc. Sci. Med. 231, 47–54. doi: x.1016/j.socscimed.2018.05.006

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Piggin, J. (2015). Designed to motility? Physical activity lobbying and the politics of productivity. Health Educ. J. 74, xvi–27. doi: 10.1177/0017896913517385

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Piggin, J. (2019). The Politics of Concrete Activity. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Pronger, B. (2002). Body Fascism. Salvation in the Engineering of Physical Fitness. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Printing.

Google Scholar

Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and Social Hope. London: Penguin Books.

Google Scholar

Rutter, H., Cavill, Northward., Bauman, A., and Bull, F. (2019). Systems approaches to global and national concrete activity plans. Balderdash. World Health Org. 97, 162–165. doi: x.2471/BLT.xviii.220533

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schiappa, Due east. (2003). Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Pregnant. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Google Scholar

Silk, M., Andrews, D., and Thorpe, H, . (eds) (2017). Routledge Handbook of Physical Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Sykes, H., and McPhail, D. (2008). Unbearable lessons: contesting fat phobia in physical didactics. Sociol. Sport J. 25, 66–96. doi: ten.1123/ssj.25.1.66

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tremblay, Grand. S., Aubert, South., Barnes, J. D., Saunders, T. J., Carson, 5, Latimer-Cheung, A. East., et al. (2017). Sedentary Beliefs Enquiry Network (SBRN) – Terminology Consensus Projection procedure and outcome. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act fourteen:75. doi: ten.1186/s12966-017-0525-8

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

U.k. Master Medical Officers (2019). UK Chief Medical Officers' Physical Activity Guidelines. London: UK Regime.

Google Scholar

U. South. Section of Health and Human Services (1996). Physical Action and Wellness: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Section of Health and Man Services; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Center for Chronic Affliction Prevention and Health Promotion.

Google Scholar

Whitehead, M. (2013). Definition of physical literacy and clarification of related issues. ICSSPE Balderdash. 65, 29–35.

Google Scholar

World Wellness Organisation (2018). More than Active People for a Healthier Globe, Global Action Plan on Concrete Action 2018-2030. Geneva, Uk: Earth Health Organization.

Google Scholar

adamsonger2002.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2020.00072/full

Share this post