Please note: In 2003, the CTF updated its Grades of Recommendations to include an "I Recommendation" for situations where insufficient evidence exists to allow a recommendation to be made. (Formerly, these situations were captured under a "C Recommendation".) This change is not retroactive, and all "C Recommendations" made prior to 2003 have not been reevaluated in light of the new "I" recommendation grade. For a discussion of these recommendation grades, please link to the 2003 article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal here.
These recommendations were finalized by the Task Force in March 1994
The total burden of suffering attributable to a sedentary lifestyle in Canada and the United States is difficult to ascertain. However, sedentary lifestyle appears to be an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality<1-3> and of developing certain chronic diseases, particularly, coronary heart diseases (CHD)<4>, hypertension<5,6> and obesity.<7,8> Sedentariness has also been associated with the risk of developing non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM)<9-11> and osteoporosis. Physical inactivity increases the risk of CHD nearly twofold and is comparable to other major CHD risk factors.<4,12> In terms of attributable CHD risk, a sedentary lifestyle may carry a burden similar to that of smoking.<2,4> In 1985, a review of eight national studies conducted in Canada and the United States showed that about 20% of the adult Canadian population exercised at a level recommended for cardiopulmonary fitness, 40% exercised at a level below that recommended for cardio-pulmonary fitness but sufficient for other health benefits, and 40% were sedentary. The Canada Health Promotion Survey conducted in 1990 showed a slight decrease in the proportion of Canadians who qualified as regular exercisers, from 54% to 48%.
The relationship between the level of physical activity and socio-economic variables is unclear. Although individuals from higher socio-economic classes report performing vigorous physical activity during leisure time more frequently than those from lower classes, the level of daily physical activity is higher in lower socio-economic classes for both males and females. However, for most working people, physical activity on the job does not make up for sedentary leisure time. Women are as active as, or more active than, men between the ages of 25 and 64. However Canadians most likely to engage in daily exercise during their leisure time are men aged 65 and older.
Moderate physical activities have higher compliance rates than vigorous exercise activities, mesh better with daily lifestyles, and are well maintained over time.<3>
Data on the incidence of injury during non-competitive physical activity are scarce. One study randomly assigned 70-79 year-old men and women to strength training, walk/jog, or control groups. Injury rates were 8.7% for the strength training group during the full 26 weeks of the study, 4.8% for the walk group during weeks 1-13, and 57% for those who jogged during weeks 14-26 and had walked during their first 14 weeks. The risk of injury does not seem to be associated with age or sex. Most exercise-induced injuries are preventable. They often occur as a result of excessive levels of physical activity, and improper exercise techniques or equipment.
The concern that long-term physical activity may accelerate the development of osteoarthritis in major weight-bearing joints is not supported by case-control data. Reasonable recreational exercise performed within the limits of comfort while putting joints without underlying abnormality through normal motion does not inevitably lead to joint injury.
Adverse cardiovascular events are perhaps of greatest concern. Two recent large studies have confirmed that heavy physical activity increases the risk of acute myocardial infarction by a factor of 2.1 (95% confidence interval: 1.6-3.1)<14> to 5.9 (4.6-7.7)<15> However, a protective effect of regular physical activity was observed in both studies. As the weekly frequency of exercise increased, the relative risk of infarction during vigorous activity dropped consistently.<14,15> Studies suggest that sedentary individuals who engage in vigorous activity are at greater risk for sudden death than those who exercise regularly.<16>
All studies about the beneficial effects of exercise on all-cause and CHD mortality are subject to the "healthy volunteer" bias, even if care is taken in sampling and follow-up. In the above mentioned studies, the effects of exercise were independent of other CHD risk factors. In some studies, the cardiovascular benefits were augmented in the presence of other risk factors for CHD.<2,3> The observation that the protective effect of exercise disappears in individuals who discontinue the practice of regular physical activity supports the presence of a dose-effect relationship.
These data do not prove causal associations. Nonetheless, the consistency, strength, and suggestion of a graded response for the highest levels of fitness and physical activity being associated with decreased CHD is clear.<4>
Direct evidence that physical activity reduces the incidence of hip fractures is limited to one case-control study and one cross-sectional study. The relationships between type and extent of physical activity and osteoporosis as well as postmenopausal fractures have recently been reviewed. Some studies have suggested that skeletal loads generating muscle pull, rather than gravity, may provide benefit.
However, the variation in bone mineral density attributable to differences in activity is thought to be modest (20%) compared to the genetic contribution. Experience in intervention trials suggests the following possible limitations of exercise as a prevention and treatment modality: 1) the training regimen is not feasible over the long-term even at moderate intensity, for many people; 2) the effect is not sustained upon detraining; 3) the amount gained is modest; 4) generic programs lacking individualization may result in high rates of musculoskeletal complications and noncompliance; and 5) optimal exercise prescription in terms of type, duration, intensity, and frequency is unclear at present. Screening for osteoporosis, hormone replacement therapy, and diet are addressed in Chapters 52 and 49.
The latest version of Canadas Health Promotion Survey showed that of 42% of the adults who reported increasing their level of leisure time physical activity in the year prior to the survey, a majority (59%) did so because of increased knowledge of the risks of remaining sedentary. The example of others (46%), support from friends and family (43%), changes in social values (31%), and new life situations (30%) were also important factors in helping people become more active.
In 1989, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that clinicians should counsel all patients to engage in a program of regular physical activity, tailored to their health status and personal lifestyle.<24>
The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has also issued guidelines for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, and muscular strength and endurance, which are different objectives. A concise methodology for risk stratification prior to exercise testing based on age, coronary risk factors, signs and symptoms, and anticipated level of training has been published, along with guidelines for exercise prescription, including contraindications. Exercise stress testing to evaluate for CAD is not considered necessary, provided that the individual is contemplating initiation of low level physical activity and does not meet the criteria for high risk.
High intensity physical activity by unfit people is associated with greater cardiovascular risk and increased risk of orthopedic injury.
There is no scientific evidence that any general or specific counselling intervention by family physicians will influence sedentary individuals to practice regular physical activity. However, one must not forget that knowledge of the risk of sedentariness was the first reason to increase ones level of physical activity given by adults interviewed in Canadas Health Promotion Survey. Physicians, as part of the health care system, are a major source of health information and should be able to reinforce public health initiatives. They must also inform patients about the risks of excessively intensive physical activity under certain circumstances. Emphasis should be on encouraging a variety of self-directed, moderate-level physical activities (e.g., gardening, raking leaves, walking to work, taking the stairs) which can be more easily incorporated into an individuals daily routine. Sporadic exercise, especially if extremely vigorous in an otherwise sedentary individual, should be discouraged. If an individual requires additional direction or supervision, clinicians may wish to refer patients to an accredited fitness center or exercise specialist.
Link to Structured Abstract of this review
Link to Summary Table of this review
Link to Selected References list of this review
Reprinted in modified format by the Canadian
Task Force on Preventive Health Care
with permission.
For any technical issues please contact: webmaster@ctfphc.org
Original Copyright
© 1994 Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
Last modified March 27, 1998.