Canada Unveils New Physical Activity Guidelines

Some exciting news today – Canada’s new Physical Activity Guidelines have been officially released!  The guidelines have received a tremendous amount of media attention of late and, disappointingly, much that has been written about the guidelines in the media has been misleading or simply incorrect.  So I thought it would be good to look at the new guidelines and how they differ from the old ones. They’re not perfect, and I know that some people will argue that physical activity guidelines are unnecessary (I disagree), but I think it’s important that people have a general understand of what the guidelines are, and what they are not.

First off, some disclosure:  I am a member of the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (the group that created the guidelines), and have sat on committees in the past for ParticipACTION (who were also involved with the guidelines process).  Several of my current and former colleagues, including my PhD Supervisor, have been directly involved in the guidelines process.  So feel free to take my opinion with a grain of salt.  That being said, I didn’t actually have anything to do with the guidelines, and this post (as with all of our posts) are my own thoughts and opinions, and don’t represent the views of anyone else. Now back to the guidelines.

Why did we need new guidelines?

A number of reasons.  The old guidelines were first published in 1998 (guidelines for adults were released in 1998, older adults in 1999, children and youth in 2002), and were based on evidence from 1996 and earlier.  So the most important reason is that there is simply a lot more information now, and as a result some of the recommendations are no longer supported by the best available evidence.

Here are some of the other reasons which I’ve adapted from the CSEP website:

1. An explosion of new research, making the old guidelines out of date.  This is important for obvious reasons – there is no sense promoting a behaviour if there is no evidence linking it to health (e.g. stretching, which was in the old guidelines, but not in the new ones).

2. The old guidelines were vague, and new evidence allows more specific recommendations. Anyone who, like me, has spent hours on the Public Health Agency of Canada website trying to figure out the old guidelines, will appreciate the new clarity.  This is also helpeful for population surveillance work – vague guidelines make it difficult to classify someone as “active” or “inactive”.  For example, the old guidelines for children suggested that kids “INCREASE time CURRENTLY spent on physical ativity, starting with 30 minutes MORE per day” (emphasis theirs).  So the old guidelines were not, as many people think, that kids should do 90 minutes of physical activity per day – they were simply that kids should increase their physical activity levels by 30 minutes per day.  Since that is almost impossible to assess at the population level (you would need both pre-and post measurements, among other things…), surveillance studies of the Canadian population classified kids as “active” if they were getting 90 or more minutes of PA per day.  Which then made everyone think that the guideline was itself 90 minutes per day.  All of this to say that the vagueness of the old guidelines caused a lot of confusion.

3. The old guidelines did not cover all ages.  For example, 15-19 year-olds were left out of both child and adult guidelines in the past, placing them in guideline limbo.  That’s a pretty big problem.  While we still don’t have pre-school guidelines (although I think they’re in the pipeline), everyone else is now covered.

4. The guideline development process is now far more robust.  Previous guidelines were assembled using “Expert Opinion”… which also happens to be the lowest quality evidence, since it can introduce opportunities for bias (e.g. if one expert really thinks that stretching is important, then there is a good chance that stretching will make it into the guidelines, whether or not it is supported by the evidence).   The current Canadian guidelines have been created using the most robust and exhaustive process for any guidelines anywhere in the world (in fact, the new WHO guidelines, as well as those in other countries, are based on the evidence assembled for the creation of the Canadian guidelines).  This is important, because we physical activity folk are pushing for physicians and other healthcare workers to prescribe physical activity, just as they would any other evidence-based treatment.  But for healthcare professionals to feel comfortable with the guidelines, they need to be evidence-based.  And now they are.

What are the new guidelines?

From the CSEP website:

Kids 5-11:

For health benefits, children aged 5-11 years should accumulate at least 60 minutes of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity daily. This should include:

  • Vigorous-intensity activities at least 3 days per week.
  • Activities that strengthen muscle and bone at least 3 days per week.

More daily physical activity provides greater health benefits.

Youth 12-17:

For health benefits, youth aged 12-17 should accumulate at least 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity daily.  This should include:

  • Vigorous-intensity activities at least 3 days per week.
  • Activities that strengthen muscle and bone at least 3 days per week.

More daily physical activity provides greater health benefits.

Adults Aged 18-64:

To achieve health benefits, adults aged 18-64 years should accumulate at least 150 minutes of moderate- to vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity per week, in bouts of 10 minutes or more.

It is also beneficial to add muscle and bone strengthening activities using major muscle groups, at least 2 days per week.

More physical activity provides greater health benefits.

Adults 65+:

To achieve health benefits and improve functional abilities, adults aged 65 years and older should accumulate at least 150 minutes of moderate- to vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity per week, in bouts of 10 minutes or more.

It is also beneficial to add muscle and bone strengthening activities using major muscle groups, at least 2 days per week.

Those with poor mobility should perform physical activities to enhance balance and prevent falls.

More physical activity provides greater health benefits.

Why are the experts telling us to exercise less?

There has been a lot of confusion around the fact that the minimum guidelines are lower in certain situations than they were in the old guidelines.  For example this article from the Sun media chain titled Canadians so lazy, experts lower targets.  The way it’s been presented, you can’t help but get upset at these ivory-tower experts who are telling our kids to exercise less.  Or, as celebrity trainer Paul Plakas put it in one interview “That’s the wrong message. We have to set the standards high”

But the guidelines don’t tell people to exercise less, in fact the guideline for each age-group includes the statement “More physical activity provides greater health benefits”.  These guidelines are based on the minimum amount of daily activity that is associated with health benefits.  More is clearly better.  But an arbitrary guideline that is chosen simply to “set the standards high” is obviously of no value to health care practitioners whatsoever.  When I go to get a physical next week, I expect that my blood pressure will be compared to an evidence-based guideline, rather than an arbitrary one that is simply there to set a “high standard”, or one whose goal is to demonstrate that Canadians take blood pressure more seriously than the rest of the world.  Physical activity guidelines should be no different.

Also, as I mentioned above, the guidelines are not lower than in the past.  Or at least not uniformly so.  In some situations the new guidelines are higher than in the past, and in other situations they are lower.  More than anything they are just different, and much simpler.  For example, the below image is from the old adult physical activity guidelines:
As you can see, the old guidelines for adults differed depending on how intense your exercise was.  So the old guidelines were 60 minutes of activity per day for adults, but only if that activity was light.  If the activity was moderate, then the guidelines said that benefits could be achieved with lower amounts of activity, and if the activity was vigorous, then they needed just 20-30 minutes per day.  All this to say that it’s hard to argue that the old guidelines were a higher standard than the new ones, unless you’re willing to also admit that they were a lower standard than the new ones – it all depends on which examples you pick.  More than anything, they are different, and they are now evidence based.

Final Thoughts

So those are the guidelines themselves, and some of the ways that they differ from the old ones (CSEP also outlines the key differences on their website).  I should point out that just because these are the guidelines, it doesn’t mean that they need to be promoted to the public using exactly these terms.  In other words, I don’t think that a 30 second commercial that says “Adults should exercise 150 minutes per week” is going to be a terribly useful public-health campaign.

If the topic is how we should message the guidelines, then I like Yoni Freedhoff’s suggestion: Some is good.  More is better.  Everything counts. While that statement is not entirely evidence-based (e.g. does everything truly count, or does it have to be in bouts of 10 minutes or more?), I think it summarizes the take-home message of the guidelines quite nicely.  But regardless of the messaging we need evidence-based guidelines for at least 2 reasons:

1.  To provide healthcare workers with evidence-based information on the amount of physical activity associated with important health benefits

2.  To allow population surveillance studies (such as the recent Canadian Health Measures Survey) to determine whether Canadians are accumulating enough physical activity to maintain proper health.

I know that some people will argue that we don’t need evidence-based guidelines, and I don’t expect to convince them otherwise with this post.  But I fail to see how we are better served as researchers or as a population by not knowing the amount of physical activity associated with good health, which is essentially what they are arguing for.  I realize that some have argued that we need to address the built-environment and a number of other important societal factors in order to see physical activity levels increase, and I agree with that wholeheartedly.  But I think that’s an entirely separate issue.  The guideline itself (e.g. people should accumulate X amount of physical activity per day) should be based on the best available evidence, just as our other guidelines for things like BMI, waist circumerence, and metabolic syndrome are.  The steps taken to help the population meet those guidelines is a completely different issue.  I’m curious to hear what everyone else thinks in the comments.

For more info on the guidelines, you can check out the detailed info at the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology website, which includes more in-depth info on the guidelines themselves, and the process used to create them.  You can also check out my previous post on the exhaustive evidence review process used to inform the guidelines.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
This entry was posted in Physical Activity and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Canada Unveils New Physical Activity Guidelines

  1. WRG says:


    I hope you’ll allow me to stray from the guidelines as such and discuss physical activity in general.

    I really think the whole “problem” begins when children enter school and have to take phys ed. I am totally in favour of physical education in our schools throughout both primary and secondary school, however I think that almost immediately, kids realize that they are either “good” at phys ed or “bad” at it and that no matter how hard they try, kids who are not natural athletes will be made fun of and get low marks in this subject. From an early age, many people are therefore totally turned off physical activity, seeing it as something they just can’t do well and therefore don’t want to do.

    Although it has been many years since I was in a gym class, I still remember how pathetic I felt compared to the other kids. I was short, dumpy and slow. I was hopeless, whether I was running, jumping hurdles, climbing ropes or swimming lengths. Of course, I was the last to be chosen for any team sports. My marks in phys ed were pretty abysmal though I was often at or near the top of the class in the academic subjects. Needless to say, I got out of phys ed the minute it was no longer mandatory.

    Fast forward several decades to the discussion I had with my teenage son the other day. He is in Gr. 12 and after having dropped phys ed the moment he could do so (he too is amazingly athletically ungifted, minus the dumpiness), he is now taking it again. Why? Because he now goes to a very small, private school that is essentially composed of nerds. Although his forte lies with the pure sciences and math, he enjoys his phys ed classes because they are very small and the kids have no particular talent for athletics. They just enjoy moving and working up a sweat. He told me that he would never have taken gym classes again in the public system because it was very clear that only gifted athletes were welcome.

    Doesn’t this sound like “health club” culture? So many ordinary people avoid going to the gym like the plague because they feel they will be looked down on by all those toned gym bunnies. People have the love of movement drummed out of them by a culture that only recognizes elite athletes as being of any worth. They don’t realize that taking a good walk every day is worthwhile, that taking public transit can be part of one’s exercise routine. It’s “them” (the gym bunnies or even the guys who look like you–no offense intended, but you look like a guy who was welcomed onto the team when you were at high school) against “us”, the ordinary shlubs whose stomachs will never be flat, no matter how many crunches we do.

    By the time the current school system has finished with kids it’s too late. The best thing we could do for Canadians would be to eliminate the jock culture from the minute kids arrive at school, make phys ed mandatory for everyone, right up to high school graduation and give a simple pass/fail mark based ONLY on participation. The more athletically gifted could have their own classes, just like the kids who excel in art, science or music.

    Today, I do what I can to remain active despite hereditary arthritis. But it’s because I’ve really given the issue some thought and decided to try my best and put aside the deep feelings of athletic inferiority that were instilled in me as a child.

    • Janis says:

      IAWTC. I was the opposite end of the physical spectrum — the skinny brainy weakling, and I still to this day hate and despise all athletic activity but especially anything at all related to competitive team sports. At 5’8″ and 125lbs and supposedly such a fashion-ideal build, I wouldn’t pick up a baseball bat if you held a gun to my head even today. This classic detestation of “gym class” goes so far beyond simply obesity issues it’s not even funny.

      All it was, was bullying. Physical activity to me means a nice brisk walk outside on a sunny day for about two-three miles or thereabouts, which I love … but it’s taken me four decades to realize that I like getting up and moving at MY pace, by myself, with no points scored or games won, and no thick-necked jocks standing next to me waiting for me to trip or depending on me not to screw up.

      Why mere physical activity and bruising team competition must even be related is something I simply do not fathom and don’t want to. People don’t even know the difference.

    • Rhodia says:

      Oh wow this really takes me back. Here’s what I got out of phys ed classes:
      – Humiliation (being picked last or near last, being criticized by team mates for not being able to hit the ball or whatever).
      – Self image of myself as a person who is not athletic and not good at sports, in response to which I developed the defense mechanism of considering myself smart and intellectual, unlike those dumb jocks.
      – Identification of physical activity with team sports.
      – The determination to do no physical activity unless forced (so of course I dropped phys ed after grade 10 when it was no longer required).

      Only now, in my 30s, am I discovering a love of physical activity. But this physical activity is solo and on my own terms, and does not require much in the way of technical skill and coordination. My sport of choice is running. I can do it totally alone, whenever I want to. It is easy to do and doesn’t require skill, just endurance. I can be competitive against myself and try to improve my performance. Nobody is counting on me or cares if I am slow. I also enjoy cycling as transportation — who says physical activity has to be training, sports, etc. It can just be how you get from point A to point B. They don’t tell you this kind of thing in phys ed, they don’t teach you how you can integrate physical activity into your life. They just teach you how to play volleyball and softball and field hockey.

      • Janis says:

        Yeah. Physical movement == sports == being at the mercy of mean, violent thugs. No wonder we’re a country of lazy people who avoid physical activity.

        I don’t care about reforming the image of bullies or making sports look like something nice people do. I just think we need to promote physical activity as something someone can do exactly like you said: at your own pace, by yourself, improving by your own standards, and relying only on your own self. Walking, day hiking, biking, that sort of stuff. Screw points scored, and if I want to be competitive, I’ll try to beat my own damn time the last time I was out. I don’t even want to go to a gym — I’m not paying money to be surrounded by the grown-up versions of those high school thugs.

  2. R E G says:

    Count me in as another victim of gym class and sport culture. It took me years to discover that I loved physical activity – as long as no one is keeping score.

    WRG – Re “Health club culture” – the culture is not the same everywhere. I go to a gym whose owner has a passionate interest in helping stroke victims. The treadmills by the front door are like handicapped parking spaces – reserved for those with mobility problems. The local hockey team (eye candy!) are working out alongside Grandpa.

  3. maureen says:

    Thanks for this article Travis. I appreciate the comments about early introductions to physical activity at school. I do agree with some of the suggestions. I was neither 1st pick on the teams or last so I’m a neutral party. Let’s not focus on school/organized sport as the sole responsibilty. As a mother of 3 small boys, why wait until school to have my kids learn that physical activity encompasses many things, competitive sport being just one of them. The emphasis should be on movement – I don’t rely on the school to make my kid move, but I do agree more is better and activity at school is still a must but not the means to an end. If I’m not active at home, then what does Mr or Mrs X (the gym teacher) have to offer my child? The foundation is already laid. My recommendation is that we all take ownership of our health and that of our children. It’s our health and no one else’s. Good summary of new and old guidelines. It’s useful for my work in cardiac rehab, where activity is at the forefront.

  4. Pingback: Canada Releases World’s First Evidence-Based Sedentary Guidelines | Obesity Panacea

  5. Bill Hearst says:

    Hi Travis,

    I found the tone of your critcism in your article titled
    Canada Unveils New Physical Activity Guidelines – 2011
    regarding the original PA guidelines negative, demeaning and insulting to those who worked on the original project. Do you get off on cutting down world renowned researchers and teachers. You have not represented the guidelines in the spirit in which they were developed (nor with the original objective that the tools to be used for behavioural awareness and taking 1st steps). A guide by itself does not produce behaviour change but an increase in awareness. You need to study the original guidelines again as you don’t seem to have gotten the message at all.

    The steering committess agreed to ‘work within the philosophy of using the best evidence, with the best experts and the best common sense…..using a mediated approach with C&Y and their key influencers, the purpose of the guide to build attitudes of life-long active lifestyles.’ You seemed to have missed this important point.

    It saddens me to see young researchers like yourself get caught up with the politics and not using your God given common sense to make sense of science in a meaningful way.

    in health,


    • Travis says:

      Hi Bill,

      I don’t think I follow you.

      I work with several of the people involved in the guidelines process (both old and new), and the criticisms listed above are legitimate problems with the original guidelines that have been voiced by the people who created them (it’s worth keeping in mind that many of the same individuals were involved in both the old and new guidelines). The best evidence that was available in 1998 when the old guidelines were created is not the best evidence available to us now. Similarly, the process of creating guidelines has become more robust over time, and to be adopted by clinicians working in evidence-based areas the guidelines really did need to be updated using a more rigorous process.

      That’s not to say that the people who did the original guidelines did a bad job – far from it – there is just more information, and better tools available now than in 1998.

  6. Pingback: Childhood Obesity Research at CSEP 2011 | Obesity Panacea

  7. Pingback: Childhood Obesity Research at CSEP 2011 | Obesity Panacea