I'm not suggesting that it's bad to talk about weight gain, neither will I ever shame people for wanting to lose weight.

There are several issues with articles like these /1 https://twitter.com/SarahGrynpas/status/1249063796825559040

1) Potential for harm - How is this message likely to be interpreted? By who? What are the risks v benefits of conflating physical activity with earning food? How might it impact vulnerable populations such as those with eating disorders? Will it encourage excessive behaviours?

2) It provides unnecessary worry and anxiety for people who are constrained by the lockdown and have less opportunity to be active. This pandemic has exposed and widened inequalities over a short period of time including PA inequalities.

3) Undermines physical, mental & social benefits of PA - Weight loss is a dominant narrative in PA policy & practice & is frequent in media too. Articles like this reinforce the idea that physical activity is a vehicle for weight loss & may discourage people from participation.

4) Unlikely to encourage long term participation - Sure, one could argue that it might increase awareness of an individual's activity levels, but people who engage in PA long term are likely to motivated by reasons which aren't to do with their weight. Why can't we explore those?

5) Potentially overestimate calorie expenditure - I do not know how they have calculated how many calories are burned with each form of exercise, but the likelihood of them using an accurate measure is low which doesn't make the information reliable in the first place.

6) Food is more than calories - food is pleasure, enjoyment, social connection and nourishment. People seem to forget that and it's becoming lost in translation with this ongoing fixation on calories whilst stripping the social aspects of food.

The argument about preventing weight gain or encouraging people to be active during the lockdown is a short-sighted one & simply adds to the stress & anxieties many people might have, particularly when many are doing their best to follow Government guidelines.

In short, do these articles help and support people with decisions? Unlikely and they're very much recycled year on year. I'd much rather we were targeting policies, not people whilst being more critically aware of the potential for unintended harm. /END