Physical Activity and Mental Health: The Natural Partnership
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/17465729200000003 |
| Pages | 13-15 |
| Date | 01 January 2000 |
| Published date | 01 January 2000 |
| Author | Robert Cummins |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care |
Physical Activity and Mental
Health: The Natural
Partnership
Robert A. Cummins
School of Psychology,
Deakin University, Melbourne
COMMENTARY
International Journal of Mental Health Promotion VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1 • FEBRUARY 2000 © Pavilion Publishing (Brighton) Limited. 13
rFox is to be congratulated on this clear and concise
review. He presents an overwhelming case for ‘exercise is good for
you’, drawing on the wealth of empirical evidence that is now
available from both his own research and that of many other
researchers. Indeed, so strong is this case that it now has the
hallmarks of conventional wisdom. But looks can be deceiving, and
so can the accumulation of data from a multitude of methodological-
ly weak studi es.Whi le Fox notes this danger and draws attention to
examples of methodologically strong studies in this review, he still
overstates his case in relation to the enhancement of subjective well-
being. This commentary will take
amore jaundiced view of the evidence. It will also discuss the
necessity for researchers to test theoretical models if thi s field is to
advance beyond pure
description.
Overstatement and methodology
While this is clearly an up-beat review, Dr Fox has also shown con-
siderable restraint in his claims for positive benefits. However, there
is more to the
negative side of the equation than has been presented, and this
requires emphasis in order to preserve the analytical balance. The
general impression is given that some exercise is good for you and
more is better. For example, he states that:
‘the evidence for a dose response for exercise
on reduced incidence of depression over time
is convincing’
and:
‘There is sufficient evidence to show that
physical activity should be promoted in all
facets of the population, regardless of its
impact on mental health’.
In my view the first statement is wrong and the
second is evangelical.
The idea that ‘more is better’ cannot be reasonably sustained. It
is widely understood that over-exertion is aversive. Incarceration,
together with the imposition ofhard and meaningless labour,is wide-
Dly recognised as a harsher penalty than incarceration alone.
Moreover, the physical and psychological demands of elite athletics
training can most certainly be damaging (see Tofler et al., 1996 for a
review). Such people are at high risk of developing musculo-skeletal
disorders which will harm their well-being later in life. Moreover,
many are also at risk of developing eating disorders and a variety of
psychological problems associated with single-minded devotion to
training schedules. Children may be especially vulnerable in this
regard.
In relation to evangelism, it is actually quite
disturbing to consider the proposition that people should exercise
even at the expense of their own mental health. The author’s ratio-
nale is that the physical health benefits so incurred will
‘eliminate substantial amounts of mental anguish experienced by
victims [disabled through lack of exercise] and their friends and
families’.
However, this argument cannot be reasonably
sustained at almost any level. It has not been
established that aversive exercise has medical
benefits. Moreover,the immedia te personal cost of such exercise is
likely to be considerable and the future benefits to anyone other
than the exerciser are hypothetical.
Finally, while Dr Fox has acknowledged the methodological
flaws in much of the reported research, this problem needs to be
given more emphasis. For example, if 100 studies find a positive
result from an exercise program and all had a 20% or less initial
acceptance rate into the program, and suffered a 50% attrition rate
during the program,
the results are meaningless no matter what control groups were
employed. This perspective has not been given its due. For example,
the author states:
‘Those who are involved in recreational exercise and sport find it
provides fun, relaxation, good stress management, mental chal-
lenge, sense of achievement and positive social interaction’.
Whatis not recognised, however, is that people who play chess or
go fishing also experience these states, but it is quite wrong to
expect that a chess player would necessarily experience these out-
comes through playing sport, and vice versa. Which brings me to the
issue of theory.
To continue reading
Request your trial