4 ms·
How can "active enough to protect their health" be anything other than arbitrary, a value in the eye of the beholder? To take that fluffy indeterminate thing an
by hirundo 5y ago
How can "active enough to protect their health" be anything other than arbitrary, a value in the eye of the beholder? To take that fluffy indeterminate thing and use it to divide up society isn't much more than saying "we think 25% of people don't move around enough". That's not very authoritative.
More interesting would be "active enough for optimal health", since you can at least approach an objective definition of "optimal".
- loeg 5y agoThis article is based on self-report data, where the (relatively objective) criteria is: > Respondents were classified as physically inactive if they responded “no” to the following question: “During the past month, other than your regular job, did you participate in any physical activities or exercises such as running, calisthenics, golf, gardening, or walking for exercise?” It doesn't attempt to determine what an appropriate level to "protect health" is; that's pure editorialization on the part of the byline.
- nicoburns 5y agoThe "other than your regular job" bit seems a bit odd. Someone who works as a labourer probably doesn't need to do any exercise outside of work to be active enough.
- nicoburns 5y ago"active enough that factors other than exercise dominate health" would seem to be a reasonable bar to me. Obviously you can only estimate this, but that still seems useful.