UK Chief Medical Officers’ physical activity guidelines 2019: What’s new and how can we get people more active?

Background The efficacy of high-intensity interval training for a broad spectrum of cardio-metabolic health outcomes is not in question. Rather, the effectiveness of this form of exercise is at stake. In this paper we debate the issues concerning the likely success or failure of high-intensity interval training interventions for population-level health promotion. Discussion Biddle maintains that high-intensity interval training cannot be a viable public health strategy as it will not be adopted or maintained by many people. This conclusion is based on an analysis of perceptions of competence, the psychologically aversive nature of high-intensity exercise, the affective component of attitudes, the less conscious elements of motivated behaviour that reflect our likes and dislikes, and analysis using the RE-AIM framework. Batterham argues that this appraisal is based on a constrained and outmoded definition of high-intensity interval training and that truly practical and scalable protocols have been - and continue to be - developed. He contends that the purported displeasure associated with this type of exercise has been overstated. Biddle suggests that the way forward is to help the least active become more active rather than the already active to do more. Batterham claims that traditional physical activity promotion has been a spectacular failure. He proposes that, within an evolutionary health promotion framework, high-intensity interval training could be a successful population strategy for producing rapid physiological adaptations benefiting public health, independent of changes in total physical activity energy expenditure. Summary Biddle recommends that we focus our attention elsewhere if we want population-level gains in physical activity impacting public health. His conclusion is based on his belief that high-intensity interval training interventions will have limited reach, effectiveness, and adoption, and poor implementation and maintenance. In contrast, Batterham maintains that there is genuine potential for scalable, enjoyable high-intensity interval exercise interventions to contribute substantially to addressing areas of public health priority, including prevention and treatment of Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Background Physical activity (PA) brief advice in health care is effective at getting individuals active. It has been suggested that one in four people would be more active if advised by a GP or nurse, but as many as 72% of GPs do not discuss the benefits of physical activity with patients. Aim To assess the knowledge, use, and confidence in national PA and Chief Medical Officer (CMO) health guidelines and tools among GPs in England. Design and setting Online questionnaire-based survey of self-selecting GPs in England that took place over a 10-day period in March 2016. Method The questionnaire consisted of six multiple-choice questions and was available on the Doctors.net.uk (DNUK) homepage. Quotas were used to ensure good regional representation. Results The final analysis included 1013 responses. Only 20% of responders were broadly or very familiar with the national PA guidelines. In all, 70% of GPs were aware of the General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ), but 26% were not familiar with any PA assessment tools, and 55% reported that they had not undertaken any training with respect to encouraging PA. Conclusion The majority of GPs in England (80%) are unfamiliar with the national PA guidelines. Awareness of the recommended tool for assessment, GPPAQ, is higher than use by GPs. This may be because it is used by other clinical staff, for example, as part of the NHS Health Check programme. Although brief advice in isolation by GPs on PA will only be a part of the behaviour change journey, it is an important prompt, especially if repeated as part of routine practice. This study highlights the need for significant improvement in knowledge, skills, and confidence to maximise the potential for PA advice in GP consultations.

Non-communicable disease is a leading threat to global health. Physical inactivity is a large contributor to this problem; in fact, the WHO ranks it as the fourth leading risk factor for overall morbidity and mortality worldwide. In Canada, at least 4 of 5 adults do not meet the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines of 150 min of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week. Physicians play an important role in the dissemination of physical activity (PA) recommendations to a broad segment of the population, as over 80% of Canadians visit their doctors every year and prefer to get health information directly from them. Unfortunately, most physicians do not regularly assess or prescribe PA as part of routine care, and even when discussed, few provide specific recommendations. PA prescription has the potential to be an important therapeutic agent for all ages in primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of chronic disease. Sport and exercise medicine (SEM) physicians are particularly well suited for this role and should collaborate with their primary care colleagues for optimal patient care. The purpose of this Canadian Academy and Sport and Exercise Medicine position statement is to provide an evidence-based, best practices summary to better equip SEM and primary care physicians to prescribe PA and exercise, specifically for the prevention and management of non-communicable disease. This will be achieved by addressing common questions and perceived barriers in the field.Author note This position statement has been endorsed by the following nine sport medicine societies: Australasian College of Sports and Exercise Physicians (ACSEP), American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM), British Association of Sports and Exercise Medicine (BASEM), European College of Sport & Exercise Physicians (ECOSEP), Norsk forening for idrettsmedisin og fysisk aktivite (NIMF), South African Sports Medicine Association (SASMA), Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Sportmedizin/Swiss Society of Sports Medicine (SGSM/SSSM), Sport Doctors Australia (SDrA), Swedish Society of Exercise and Sports Medicine (SFAIM), and CASEM.