Is Physical Inactivity the New Smoking in South Carolina?
April 20, 2016
By Daniel Bornstein, Ph.D.
Second phase of U.S. Physical Activity Plan released on April 20, but there’s no SC plan in sight
If smoking isn’t tolerated in South Carolina schools, workplaces, and public transportation, then why is physical inactivity tolerated in our towns, cities, and state? Physical inactivity is the fourth leading cause of death worldwide, and has been labeled one of the greatest public health challenges of the 21st century. However, outside of the public health field, nobody seems to care. Do you really care how physically active your co-workers, friends, or family members are? If you’re like most, you don’t care because others’ physical activity seemingly has little-to-no impact on you.
But what if those same co-workers, friends, and family members were smokers, would you care about their smoking behavior? Many care deeply about others’ smoking behavior because of the effects of second-hand smoke. In-fact, it was the evidence on the detrimental effects of second-hand smoke that led to the demand for taxes on cigarettes and no-smoking zones. Anti-smoking advocates learned that simply warning people about the dangers of smoking was not sufficient to alter smoking prevalence, and that polices aimed at limiting access to cigarettes and opportunities to smoke were required.
Similar to smoking, there is clear evidence on how the physical inactivity of some negatively impacts society on the whole. For example, the economic burden imposed by physical inactivity on the U.S. healthcare system has been estimated between $50 and $134 billion annually. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Defense has shown great concern over the impact of physical inactivity on military readiness.
A series of studies from the U.S. Army show that the number of young Americans able to meet the basic physical requirements for military service has steadily declined, and that among those who do qualify for service, the rates of injuries resulting from low fitness have steadily increased in recent years. Conversely, increasing population levels of physical activity carries a myriad of societal benefits. For example, communities that provide easy, safe access to physical activity through parks, trails, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes, realize less traffic congestion, stronger retail sales, and improved property values. Similarly, employers who support an active workplace (e.g. standing desks, bike racks, or walking meetings) realize increased productivity and lower turnover among employees. Lastly, schools that provide opportunities for students to be active before, during, and after the school day, realize improvements in students’ social behavior and learning capacity.
Given the evidence on the detrimental effects and costs of physical inactivity, and the benefits associated with population increases in physical activity, shouldn’t we collectively point the finger at those who are not sufficiently physically active, warn them about the dangers of physical inactivity to themselves and to us all, and insist that they become and stay more active? But if we are to learn anything from the successful anti-smoking movement, it is that without policies that alter the environments in which we work, learn, and travel, insisting that individual’s change their behavior does not work.
It is for that reason that in May, 2010 the first U.S. National Physical Activity Plan (NPAP) was released. The NPAP provided over 250 scientifically-based recommendations for policy and environmental change. Part of the purpose of the NPAP was to spawn the development of state and municipal physical activity plans. Certain states (e.g. West Virginia) and cities (e.g. San Antonio, TX) have benefited greatly from having developed plans modeled after the NPAP. South Carolina has no state plan, and none of the major municipalities in the state have physical activity plans.
The second iteration of the U.S. National Physical Activity Plan was released April 20 and it’s high time the state of South Carolina and its municipalities to take action. Individual organizations like Charleston Moves; Move IT! Charleston County; Eat Smart, Move More South Carolina; and South Carolina Safe Routes to School are all taking steps in the right direction. A disjointed approach is not sufficient to negate the detrimental effects physical inactivity is having on our cities and state. Much like North Carolina has done, South Carolina needs for state and local governments to work collaboratively with organizations, school districts, local industry, and others to develop and implement a cohesive physical activity plan. With a cohesive plan in place, access to physical activity will be greater for all. With improved access, we can collectively reap the economic and social benefits of a more active South Carolina.
Daniel Bornstein, Ph.D., is a professor in The Citadel’s Department of Health, Exercise, and Sport Science, and Chair of the physical activity section of the American Public Health Association. His focus includes exercise physiology, biomechanics, physical activity epidemiology and measurement, and physical activity policy. He is currently leading or participating in research related to national physical activity policy, military fitness, as well as coalitions focused on physical activity and active living.
