fitness · research · Science

Does exercise before breakfast burn more fat than exercise after dinner? And do we need to worry about this?

A 2025 study on fat oxidation rates and exercise timing is getting more press on social media this week. Because why not… 🙂 Here’s the deal:

In a study of (yes, you guessed it) male college students, researchers found that 60 minutes of morning exercise before breakfast, after fasting all night, resulted in 20% higher fat oxidation rates than an hour of the same exercise after eating dinner.

Uh, yay?

Actually, I think the more appropriate reaction here is: meh.

the word "meh" against a red background.
It bears repeating: meh.

Why am I not excited about this? I mean, it’s SCIENCE.

Yes, that’s so. It’s real science done by real scientists, on real experimental young male subjects. And, this is a real result. But, it doesn’t mean that we should all switch to exercising before breakfast. Why not? Here are some concerns of mine, plus some by the commenters:

  • The purpose of exercise is not necessarily to lose fat– we exercise for a host of reasons, and possible fat reduction is only one of them.
  • Fat oxidation does equal fat loss. In order to lose fat, there has to be a calorie deficit in addition to fat oxidation.
  • Some commenters argued that the results are largely due to the fact that the subjects had fasted before exercise; there’s no indication in the study that the time of day mattered (other than it’s easier to fast while sleeping– I don’t actually need a scientific study to assert this with confidence).
  • The metabolic effects on a busload of twenty-something males are not necessarily applicable to the larger population. And in particular, we know that metabolic effects of exercise vary by gender, so this result may not apply in the same way to everyone.

However, my main point is: newsy stories about studies that suggest “you oughta exercise like THIS rather than like THAT” ignore the value of just getting out there– to your neighborhood, living room, gym, yoga studio, pond, wherever you like to be while moving. Feel free to move wherever and whenever suits you.

And while we’re at it, moving before breakfast is something I plan on doing only if a bear is chasing me. Or if one of my friends (Samantha and Janet, I’m looking at y’all) manages to talk me into a very early-morning adventure. But even then, I’ll need snacks.

I love me some choices for exercise snacks. Granols bars, trail mix, chips. Thanks Nathan D for Unsplash.

fitness · research · Science

Research roundup: blurbs on new bits of possible knowledge about fitness

Hi readers– starting this month, I’ll be posting a research roundup– a selection of information about new studies out that may be of interest to us (or not), of relevance to us (or not), and whether we should pay attention to them (or not).

Usually I’ll be posting on the third Wednesday of the month, but this is a special Friday edition. Woo-hoo! So here goes…

We get this message from time to time, but luckily for us (well, me, at least), science is still saying that:

Messaging saying "thick thighs save lives". Yay!
Messaging saying “thick thighs actually do save lives”. Yay!

So what could this mean, exactly? Here’s some info from the HumeHealth Instagram post:

Large population studies have consistently found that lower-body strength is one of the strongest predictors of mortality ever identified in human health research.

And the relationship holds even when researchers control for:
• age
• body weight
• cardiovascular fitness
• physical activity

In other words: strength itself matters

We know that there are lots of simpler tests and functions that can serve as proxies for more complicated physiological tests and body functions; lower-body strength seems to be one of those.

We hear debates about intensity vs volume in exercise, and some recent reseearch suggests that intensity has more impact than volume. This 2026 article says so, in fact.

But, consistency matters, too. At least in resistance training, says this guy (who seems really happy, maybe because he got on the news?)

This is Stuart Phillips, who is psyched to tell you the results of his research study.
This is Stuart Phillips, who is super-stoked to tell you the results of his research study.

“The best resistance training program is the one you’ll actually stick with,” says Stuart Phillips, distinguished professor in the Department of Kinesiology and an author on the Position Stand. “Training all major muscle groups at least twice a week matters far more than chasing the idea of a ‘perfect’ or complex training plan. Whether it’s barbells, bands, or bodyweight, consistency and effort drive results.”

We already sort-of-knew that science believes that exercise helps our brains in a bunch of ways– maybe it helps stave off cognitive decline, boost memory and reasoning, and loads of other things. You can read a CDC overview about brain benefits of exercise if you want a deeper dive.

But what about the other way around?

Which way does the causal arrow go? Maybe both ways! Thanks Ian Taylor of Unsplash for the pic.
Which way does the causal arrow go? Maybe both ways! Thanks Ian Taylor of Unsplash for the pic.

In a recently published study, researchers found a connection between a group of neurons in the hypothalamus and capacity for boosting physical endurance in workouts over time.

IN MICE.

What? Well, here are some of the details:

[Researchers] worked with mice that underwent a rigorous exercise training program. They ran five days a week on a [teeny] tiny treadmill, with a single weekly long run that increased in speed. This training significantly raised their endurance, which peaked about three weeks into the program.

The researchers found that some SF1-producing neurons had an uptick in activity. As the training program continued, these neurons became increasingly active, seemingly forming a kind of “memory” of past exercise.

When these neurons were blocked from firing in mice after their exercise programs, their endurance capacity did not rise. Taking the opposite tack, artificially increasing the firing of SF1-producing neurons after their exercise programs led to continued endurance improvement even at the three-week mark, when it typically plateaued in mice with normal SF1-neuron firing rates.

Apparently the brain does something. And the brain stuff happens as the mouse is on the teeny-tiny treadmill. That’s all I got.

All this is very well and good, BUT: is anyone actually lacing up the sneaks and getting out there? Turns out, yes.

A CDC report released April 7 finds that nearly half of all US adults get the recommended level of physical activity. Here are some details:

  • In 2024, 47.2% of adults age 18 and older met the federal guidelines for aerobic physical activity, with men being more likely to meet the guidelines (52.3%) than women (42.4%).
  • The prevalence of meeting the federal guidelines for aerobic physical activity increased with increasing education level.
  • Adults living in the West were more likely to meet the federal guidelines for aerobic physical activity compared with those in other regions.
  • Aerobic physical activity was higher among adults without disabilities (49.8%), those with healthy weight (54.8%), and those with excellent or very good health (57.8%).

This is good news, as it shows an uptick in levels of physical activity, which (as we know) is good for a lot of things. Now, the fact that prevalence was lower among higher-weight folks and adults with disabilities shows (in my view) that we need more programs and more access and fewer structural barriers to physical activity for all of us. Don’t you agree?

A bunch of people playing with ribbons, doing gymmastics in a gym. Looks like fun.
A bunch of people playing with hula hoops, doing gymmastics in a gym. Looks like fun.

That’s it on the blurbs for now. See you all next month. If you have a request for comments or blurbs on any new research you come across, post it on our social media pages or add a comment down below.

fitness · research

Research Roundup: more vacations, not fewer sweets, and early to bed are all good for us?

Wondering what science has been up to while you’ve been working, working out, sleeping, cooking, streaming? Here are a few science news bits and bobs for your reading pleasure.

First up, great news that we already knew, but science is in our corner: people need 7 vacations a year to reduce stress. Well, duh. But hey, if science says so, maybe work and life will follow? One can always hope… You can find some studies here and here.

Nothing says vacation to me like flamingo floatie. BY Vicko Mozara for Unsplash.
Nothing says vacation to me like flamingo floatie. By Vicko Mozara for Unsplash.

New research suggests that cutting sweets doesn’t actually reduce cravings. Here are some details:

A new clinical trial found that adjusting how sweet a person’s diet is does not affect how much they enjoy sweet foods. Whether people ate more or less sweet-tasting items, their preference for sweetness stayed the same.

The study also found no meaningful differences in markers linked to heart disease or diabetes. Over six months, participants who increased or reduced their intake of sweet foods showed similar results across all health measures.

Interesting… Very interesting.

Here’s one that’s not particularly good news for me: a FB post cited a study saying that earlier bedtimes translate into greater longevity.

A recent study reveals a fascinating connection between sleep habits and longevity: people who go to bed before 10 PM live, on average, 6 years longer than late sleepers. Prioritizing early, consistent sleep supports the body’s natural circadian rhythm, improves hormone regulation, and strengthens the immune system.

Early bedtimes help the body repair tissues, consolidate memory, and detoxify the brain. Sleeping late disrupts these processes, leading to higher risks of chronic diseases, cognitive decline, and overall lower life expectancy. Studies also show that people who sleep early often maintain better heart health, stable metabolism, and reduced stress levels.

But I’m a bit skeptical about this. Digging a little deeper, we see that getting even a little more sleep (25 minutes, for example), can confer health benefits both short-term and long-term. We sort of knew that. And, lots of people work on earlier schedules, which means that early to bed and early to rise is a good plan.

BUT BUT– being a night owl when you don’t have to rise early doesn’t seem to be as harmful IF it’s not a symptom of sleep disorder, alcohol or substance use disorder, or depression. (I say this as a completely impartial night owl myself).

I don’t have a scientific study to back me me, but I think sleeping in this condition is to be avoided generally, mainly because it looks very uncomfortable.

This person should seriously consider changing into pajamas.  They are trying to sleep in a hoopskirt.
This person should seriously consider changing into pajamas.

Happy week, dear readers!

fitness · nutrition · research · Science

I love coffee, I love tea; when it comes to dementia risk, they love me

Yes, yet another study has come out linking some food/beverage product to increased/decreased risk of something-or-other. In this case, however, it’s about how coffee (and also tea) lower dementia risk and modestly better cognitive function.

I’ll drink to that.

The eight shades of coffee.Thanks Nathan D from Unsplash for the photo.
Many shades of coffee.Thanks Nathan D from Unsplash for the photo.

These results were drawn from very large cohorts of healthcare professionals in the UK that have tracked behaviors and conditions over 40+ years. So this is not a randomized controlled trial. Still, this is how researchers find connections between habits like drinking coffee and health outcomes. So, what did they find this time?

There was a statistically significantly reduced dementia risk, with lowered risks for higher caffeine intake (up to 4 cups a day of coffee, 2–3 of tea; no improvements reported for higher daily intake).

There were very modest reductions in subjective cognitive decline (self-reported by participants) and objective cognitive decline (performance on cognitive tests) in the caffeine consumers. Again, the reductions increased along with caffeine intake, but hit saturation at 4 cups of coffee a day.

A notable fact about this study is that they were able to distinguish the effects of caffeinated coffee and tea (vs. decaf beverages). Caffeine is reported to be neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory (I could insert fancy text from the study, but trust me, it’s very science-y).

But, we also know that caffeine is NOT good for everything that ails us. It can affect sleep quality and cause all sorts of bad upper GI symptoms. But not everything that’s good in one way is good in all ways. That’s simply not coffee’s fault.

So, all’s I’m saying is, Coffee doesn’t drink coffee; people drink coffee…

Oh, and one more thing: I love this ditty– Java Jive– performed here by the Manhattan Transfer. Enjoy with a steaming mug.

fitness · research · Science

Mini research roundup: new studies show exercise is good for you

News flash: some recent studies out this month strongly suggest that physical activity is beneficially for health.

Yes, I'm as shocked as she is. By Alexanders Krivitskiy for Unsplash.
Yes, I’m as shocked as she is. By Alexanders Krivitskiy for Unsplash.

Now that you’ve had some time to get used to this new-new fact, here are a couple of studies with not-surprising results about fitness and health.

Strength training before endurance training confers more benefits (IN MEN).

A study of 45 young men found small changes in bone health, body composition and overall physical fitness by switching up the order of strength training and endurance training (lifting weights first, then running).

As Miss Manners likes to say, how nice for them.

Small changes in physical activity make a big difference in overall mortality-risk (when you’re looking at the population-level).

Again, the messages here are clear: small increases in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and 30-60-minutes decreases in sedentary time daily reduce mortality risk from 3% (cutting sedentary time) to up to 10% (increasing physical activity by 10 minutes a day in certain subpopulations– it’s a little complicated here). But this is the bird’s eye view, meaning this holds for big populations and not at the individual level. You can peruse the actual study here (in your copious free time, but maybe stand up while doing it…)

One wonders: does putting your hands in the air like you just don't care count as moderate physical activity? Thanks Handon Lu for the picture (from Unsplash.)
One wonders: does putting your hands in the air like you just don’t care count as moderate physical activity? Thanks Hanson Lu for the picture (from Unsplash.)

Stay tuned for more breaking news at Fit is a Feminist Issue!

fitness · research · Science · sleep

Are they coming for the naps now? No. Not over my sleeping body.

In my view, medical research gets a lot right. We have good evidence that, for instance:

  • ultra-processed foods contribute to health markers that are linked to a variety of serious illnesses (like cardiovascular disease, some cancers, and type 2 diabetes)
  • physical activity is one of the best things we can do for our health, longevity and well-being, across the lifespan
  • developing and maintaining social connections of all sorts helps us maintain wellness and address issues in our own mental and physical health
  • sleep is a magical elixir that rejuvenates us and prepares us for the daily lives we want to lead (okay, the study didn’t use the words “magical elixir”, but they should have)

Here’s what Unsplash thinks healthy living looks like:

Unsplash endorses huge artichokes and hanging upside down more than the usual experts, but hey...
Unsplash endorses eating huge artichokes and hanging upside down more than experts, but hey…

We also know that some health claims are absolute nonsense, like:

  • sleeping with a bar of lavender soap in your bed will NOT help treat or cure restless leg syndrome ( Dr Mehmet Oz said this)
  • (fill in the blank) vitamin supplement NOT will cure (Alzheimer’s, cancer, Parkinson, COVID, etc.) medical condition (Oz promoted a bunch of these, too)
  • Using coffee as anything other than a delightful morning beverage is a BAD IDEA (the Cleveland clinic explains why, if you must know)
  • Virtually all advertised weight-loss products are BOGUS (trust me on this)
Yeah, no to all these things. Thanks, Markus Spiske for Unsplash.
Yeah, no to all these things. Thanks, Markus Spiske for Unsplash.

Let us now return to that magical elixir, sleep. Sleep feels good, does good, is good for us. Check, check, check. But what about its sweet cousin, the nap? Surely that delicious sleep snack must be a positive contributor to our lives, right?

I have to say that a somewhat recent scientific study came out, saying that daytime napping is associated with adverse health outcomes. In particular, it said:

Longer naps, greater intra-individual variability in daytime nap, and higher percentages of naps around noon and in the early afternoon are associated with greater mortality risks.

What?! Nonononononononononono!

Well, Prevention magazine thinks these scientists may be on to something. In this article, it asks the following scary questions:

Whoa. But don’t worry, Imma answer all these, one by one.

First, do some nap patterns increase our risk of death? No, not really.

The study looked mainly at the timing and variability of naps taken by older adults in the UK. It found oh-so-small increased risk for those who took naps at different times of day, for those who took longer naps, and for those who varied the length of their naps (which averaged 24 minutes daily).

BUT (and it’s a big but)…These results varied by gender (men seem more affected than women), by what time people arose in the morning, what time of day they tended to take their naps, how much they slept in general, and how much physical activity they got during the day. See this study for more details. And they failed to show any clinical association, just a small statistical one.

So napping isn’t really associated with death. Okay, one down.

Second: why would napping be associated with death? It’s not, not really.

Some sleep patterns reveal underlying problems rather than cause them; sleep apnea and chronic insomnia, for instance, tend to be symptoms of a variety of health conditions that carry their own mortality risk factors. But we already knew this. One of the study authors conceded this:

“The napping and mortality relationship is complex and may be influenced by adverse or protective lifestyle factors (e.g., nutrition, physical activity, substance use), nighttime sleep patterns, and underlying sleep disorders, medical comorbidities, age, as well as sex and gender-related factors.”

HAH! Told you. Second one done away with.

I told you so. Such sweet words.
I told you so. Such sweet words.

We are now in the napping-is-not-deadly-blog-post homestretch. Prevention asked, timidly, how can the napping-death connection be broken? Easy. See below.

Just get some exercise. Any kind will do. Walking, jogging, shuffleboard, bike riding (outdoors or in), swimming, dancing, playing with friends and family, yoga, strength training, etc. Why does this help keep napping from killing us? Because the adverse napping pattern (not napping itself) is often a symptom of known risk factors (like drinking or unprescribed drug use) and known medical conditions.

So, once more with feeling: it’s not the napping, folks. I mean, if you want to optimize your napping patterns, feel free– there are lots of articles (like this, this, and this) offering tips, which may or may not be true.

I hope you enjoyed this post. Now you must excuse me– it’s time for my nap…

This dog is napping. Thanks Mittra Ronjoy from Unsplash.

Shhhh… Thanks Mittra Ronjoy for Unsplash.

fitness · nutrition · research · Science

More evidence is in: ultra-processed food is a global health problem

We are probably all used to getting five-alarm headlines about the perils of some food or other, just to read later on “uh, never mind. It’s all good.” Nutritional research is infamous for big pendulum swings on its pronouncements about the goodness or badness of foods (just search “fit is a feminist issue eggs” for more info).

I’ve written on worries about ultra-processed food a couple of times for the blog:

The newest processed food nutrition studies: more to chew on

New news on ultra-processed food: similar verdict but with more nuance and context

Two reasons why the picture on ultra-processed foods and health hasn’t been so clear:

  • The classification system for level of processing in food is a work in progress, and some foods (like grocery store bread) count as ultra-processed even though they have high nutrition value.
  • Our industrial food system delivers mostly processed and ultra-processed food to most people, leaving them with little access to less processed food; so it’s not reasonable to say “don’t eat these foods” without a new plan in mind.

This very useful (and freely accessible) article in the Conversation by the authors of three new papers on ultra-processed foods lays out a clearer and more dire story.

Here’s the short version:

The food industry’s production of processed foods is changing diets worldwide.

In the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, it’s been consistently high for decades (around 50% of daily energy). Ultra-processed foods are essentially the national diet. The same goes for Australia.

It’s not that the global eating public has become lax or lazy– these products are designed not only to be high in sugar, salt, and fat. Their tastes and textures promote overeating.

Crucially, it’s not just about “too much sugar, salt and fat”. Clinicaltrials show that when adults eat diets heavy in ultra-processed foods, they consume about 500–800 extra calories per day, gain weight and fat mass, and eat more rapidly, when compared with eating a non-ultra-processed diet with the same proportions of macronutrients. This is likely because of higher energy density, tastiness, and soft textures that make overeating ultra-processed foods easy.

Almost a hundred long-term studies show significant health risks associated with a diet high in ultra-processed foods.

92 [studies] reported greater associated risks of one or more chronic diseases. Meta-analyses of these studies confirmed associations for obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, Crohn’s disease, depression, and early death from all causes.

Addressing this global health problem requires big policy solutions, not individual willpower.

Steps recommended by the authors of three papers on this subject in the Lancet medical journal are:

  • changing the composition of food products
  • fixing food environments
  • curbing corporate power
  • addressing subsidies and supply chains

Yes, these are nutrition policy wonk solutions, with complex details and long-term goals. But we all know that really big changes rarely happen without a lot of people working together, exerting political, scientific and economic influence.

So, what can we do? Keep reading, keep (or start) cooking when we can, keep voting, and keep remembering that change is slow, but change can and does happen. I believe this, and encourage you to believe it, too.

fitness · research · Science

How a little bit of culture goes a long way towards wellness, according to science

My sister and I went to the Museum of Fine Arts a couple of weeks ago when she was visiting. We had a great time meandering through the galleries, with no particular goal other than enjoyment. We met that goal easily and effortlessly. Yay!

Now it turns out that science confirms what we experienced… 🙂 A new study out from Kings College, London, found evidence that viewing art in a gallery (it has to be in a gallery, it seems) lowers stress levels. Here’s some more info:

50 volunteers aged 18-40, viewed either original artworks at The Courtauld Gallery in London or reproductions of the same paintings in a matched, non-gallery environment. Participants were monitored for heart rate variability and skin temperature using research-grade digital watches to track levels of interest and arousal.

Cortisol levels — the key stress hormone — fell by an average of 22% in the gallery group, compared to just eight per cent for the reproduction group. Those viewing original art also had more dynamic heart activity – indicating that art engages the body through both emotional arousal and stress regulation.

That’s good news for me, as I love any excuse to go to a museum or gallery. Dr. Tony Woods, one of the researchers, added this:

“Our unique and original study provides compelling evidence that viewing art in a gallery is ‘good for you’ and helps to further our understanding of its fundamental benefits. In essence, art doesn’t just move us emotionally — it calms the body too.”

You don’t have to tell me twice. I’m on it.

But maybe museums aren’t your thing. That’s fine– science has other good news for you. In a study published in October, researchers in Australia found that:

People [over 70] who listened to music most days slashed their risk of developing dementia by 39 percent compared with those who did not regularly listen to music, the study found.

Here are a few of their key points:

  • Always listening to music was associated with a 39% reduced dementia risk and better global cognition and memory scores.
  • Playing an instrument was associated with a 35% reduced dementia risk, but no significant association with CIND risk or changes in cognitive test scores over time.
  • Regularly engaging in both music listening and playing was associated with a 33% decreased risk of dementia and 22% decreased risk of cognitive impairment no dementia (CIND).

This was an observational study, so the results are associations, not causal links. But it was large– more than 10,000 participants– so the results are encouraging.

Listening to music was NOT, however, associated with subjective cognitive wellbeing. But hey, that’s what the museums are for.

So, science is giving us official permission get our culture on. Yay!

fitness · inclusiveness · research · Science

Not-very-wordy Wednesday: on avalanches and applause

One thing I do in my not-so-copious free time is scan medical journal tables of contents each week. This way I get at least a glimpse at what is going on in medical research at the moment, sometimes provoking a deeper dive into a study or sub-discipline of medicine.

Last week in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), the top article caught my eye for its very particular area of inquiry: Respiratory Gas Shifts to Delay Asphyxiation in Critical Avalanche Burial– A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Yeah, that's niche.
Yeah, that’s niche.

The researchers were testing a gadget that facilitates increased air flow to a person trapped under snow in an avalanche. TLDR: it worked very well. So that’s good.

The study subjects (24 in total) were about equally divided between men and women.

In that week’s editorial, titled “A Breath of Fresh Air”, the editors of JAMA offered historical context for this new research result. They also said that the researchers should be applauded for narrowing the gender gap in this type of research.

Applauded.

Applauded?

Yes, they said “applauded”.

As in:

A lot of people applauding, captured by Hanson Lu for Unsplash. Great job, Hanson!
A lot of people applauding, captured by Hanson Lu for Unsplash. Great job, Hanson!

I’m afraid I don’t agree here.

I beg to differ. Yes, I used this phrase last week, but what can I say? it just keeps coming up
I beg to differ. Yes, I used this phrase last week, but what can I say? it just keeps coming up

Increasing representation by gender, race, ethnicity, age, etc. in medical research has been and continues to be a big project, with lots of players contributing to small shifts in research participant selection. And I’m glad to see that this study included women as research participants; after all, women as well as men engage in back-country skiing, so it’s important to test out potentially lifesaving devices on all relevant populations.

Do the researchers deserve our thanks? Yes, for working hard as scientists. But for including women in their study? No. They’re just doing their job. They may be doing it well, but it’s their job to do so.

The movement to make human scientific and medical research truly representative isn’t finished yet. I’m glad to see widely-read medical journals paying attention. But I think they can hold their applause.

fitness · research · Science · weight stigma

Bring back the President’s Physical Fitness Test? Uh, just no. Why not? Read on.

CW: some mention of body weight in children and use of the word “obesity”. Sorry, I’ll keep it to a minimum.

If you’re a news-attentive person, you know it’s become hopeless to keep track of all the evidence and good-sense-absent decisions by the Trump administration.

Full and happy discplosure: most of my info is from the superb podcast Maintenance phase episode on this topic. You can listen here and read the transcript here. And I recommend listening to other episodes of this podcast, hosted by the superb Aubrey Gordon and her superb co-host MIchael Hobbes.

If you need a reminder about what exactly was the President’s Physical Fitness Test:

It sort of started with the Kraus Weber Test, developed in the 1940s, which tested children once on a few physical tasks (this I got from Wikipedia):

  1. A simple sit-up with knees bent and feet planted
  2. A sit-up with legs extended and not bent
  3. Raising feet while lying on the back
  4. Raising head, chest and shoulders off the ground while lying on the stomach
  5. Raising legs off the ground while lying on the stomach
  6. With knees straight, bending forward to touch the floor

Then, American Bonnie Prudden used the test on American children (insert lots more detail I’m not including), and found that 58% of kids didn’t pass the test. Meanwhile, only 8% of European children given the test (under other circumstances at different times, etc.) failed the test.

Insert big panic here.

Then-President Dwight Eisenhower was horrified at these results. So, instead of turning to education or medical or public health experts to investigate to see if there was actually a problem (along with increasing funding for physical education in schools and communities), he founded a presidential commision:

The President’s Council on Youth Fitness, which morphed over time into the President’s Council on Fitness, and is now the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition.

Important and famous people have served on these commissions. However, no one did any research at all on:

  • whether the original or modified versions of the test actually measured anything meaningful or useful in children (Spoiler: NO)
  • why American children didn’t do better on the test (Spoiler: they hadn’t practiced calisthenics in school like the Europeans did; with 6–8 weeks of practice kids did fine on the test)
  • what a one-time physical fitness test should show– current physical fitness? potential short-term fitness? potential fitness in adulthood? overall health? predictions about future health? (Spoiler: it showed none of these, as determined by later research)
  • If all schools in the US gave ths test every year to school children, what they would do with the data, like develop funded programs for improving fitness from the baselines, or even track kids’ fitness over time (Spoiler: no one did any of this, ever)

The commissions did make very nice recommendations, like:

Set aside more time and facilities and staff and training for kids to do a wider variety of sports that are accessible to everyone—e.g. fishing, bowling, archery, etc. Also, make time for free play with other kids, without the parents/teachers supervising and guiding (from Maintenance phase transcript)

Doesn’t that sound sweet? (Spoiler: the commission’s recommendations were ignored in favor of modified versions of the original test, which– as I think I mentioned earlier– measured nothing at all, other than someone’s ability to do those required tasks at that time.)

So, this test was given all over the US to all the school kids with no health goals at all. Yep.

Until 2012, when the Obama administration pivoted away from the test and toward an emphasis on overall health and activity, rather than measured (for no reason) performance. Yeah, that sounds better, doesn’t it?

Hmmm. Then why does the Trump administration want to bring it back?

In short, (you can read the long version here) because Trump and RFK think that there’s a crisis of obesity, chronic disease, and poor nutrition in the US, especially among children.

Bringing back this test will Make American Active Again, according to the press release (Spoiler: it totally won’t).

Okay. But, just for the sake of argument, why not bring it back?

Glad you asked. In addition to the above information which leads us to believe that this test doesn’t measure anything or contribute in any healh-goal-directed way to children’s health or fitness, there’s this:

Everyone hates this test. Teachers hate it. Kids hate it. Parents hate it. Why? It makes almost everyone feel bad about themselves or children they care about for no good reason.

There’s some evidence that tests like these make kids hate physical activity. That’s the opposite of what we wanted, right?

Oh, and there’s overwhelming evidence from tons of research that physical activity does not have strong effects on body weight. Physical activity is predictive of all sorts of great health outcomes like longevity, improved mental and cognitive health, and loads of other things we blog about regularly. So, bringing back the test will arguably have no positive effects on distribution of body weight among school children.

Here’s a great quote from Aubrey and Michael:

There was no evidence to do it in the first place. The evidence that it works is non-existent. And the evidence that getting rid of it is good is out there.

Need I say more? Oh, I want to. There’s so much wrong with these tests. But I’ll leave it for another time.

In the meantime, dear readers: do you recall taking these tests in gym class? What did you think? Was there one kid who climbed the rope all the way to the top, and can you remember their name?