The biggest public health problem of the developed world

Governments the world over are making leaps and bounds in the fight against smoking. Australia recently banned brand labelling on cigarette packets, the UK is running a campaign called Stoptober next month and there are increasingly fewer and fewer public spaces in which a smoker can light-up. But is smoking really the biggest public health problem of our time? Actually, no it isn’t. The biggest public health problem of today, in terms of directly attributable mortality, is physical inactivity. Lack of cardiovascular fitness accounts for twice as many deaths as does smoking.

This statistic and the graph below comes from a 2009 study by Professor Steven Blair – from the Department of Exercise Science and Epidemiogology/Biostatistics, University of South Carolina – and published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine. CRF stands for cardiorespiratory fitness and attributable fractions is an estimate of the number of deaths in a population that would have been avoided if a specific risk factor had been absent.


People spend a fortune on pills, specialists, health insurance and even surgery, yet something free and profoundly important for our health is dismissed and ignored. I imagine also that many GPs, when presented with a patient history of high blood pressure and high cholesterol, would be more inclined to prescribe pills than to encourage regular physical activity. But unlike pills, regular physical activity is free and comes without side-effects.

From the same study, Blair discovered that it is better to be fit and fat than unfit and thin. Fit, obese men had less than half the risk of dying than normal-weight, unfit men. Fat people are getting a lot of flak at the moment but from these results, we really should be dishing out the abuse to people who are physically inactive.

Physical inactivity ought to come with bold health warnings, shocking tv advertisements and huge taxes because these are all the things we do to smokers, yet physical inactivity causes more harm to health than does smoking. But of course slapping a tax on physical inactivity is very hard, perhaps impossible to do. And if you live in a car city, such as Auckland, it’s very difficult to change your lifestyle. I read recently that when people make a change to their lifestyle by incorporating an exercise regime into it, 50% have given within 6 months. This is precisely why town-planning is so important and urban sprawl so unforgiving to our health. Exercise needs to happen as a consequence of daily life – like cycling to work each day – rather than as an extracurricular activity we must make an extra effort for. And on that note, I’m going to walk the dog.

10 Replies to “The biggest public health problem of the developed world”

  1. Rachel, thanks for this post. Thought you might be interested in a related issue about the adverse health effects of sitting down for hours. My employer is providing us all with sit/stand desks in a couple of weeks to encourage us to stand for part of our working day. Agree that town planning should do better. Should also preserve as much what's left of our natural environment in new developments. Here's a link to an article about the sitting thing. Cheers, Bronwyn

  2. Funny, I was just reading the exact same report for my assignment on acute coronary syndrome!Exercise is also shown to reduce women's risk of breast cancer, it really is a cure all. I must make sure I go for that run today… Liv

  3. Yep. The desk height is adjustable. I'm looking forward to having the chance to stand for a while. I still need to do more exercise.

  4. Another's inactivity, or should that be laziness in many cases, is not going to give me lung cancer, as is the case with passive smoking, nor is it going to piss me off enormously that they are taking precious time off work morning and afternoon just to have a smoke. Why is this considered a God given right? Deduct the time from their pay I say!The fact that another person, a non-smoker, is out there somewhere being quietly lazy all to themselves doesn't bother me at all. They don't reek of tobacco, have no sense of the smell they are inflicting on the rest of us, nor do they litter the environment with filthy butts as a smoker does. The only consoling thought in all this is that somewhere down the track there will be fewer old age pensions necessary and actually save us money which could then be spent on bike paths for example. In fact, some poorer eastern European countries actually encourage smoking for this reason.Anyhow, one gets the impression that there is a growing number of people who now walk or jog to work keeping their corporate clothes at the office with showers and lockers provided by their employers. The times are a changing. Slowly the message is getting through and hopefully there will be more bike and walking paths for us all, Rachel.

  5. I've read too that smokers do save us money by dying younger and paying a huge tax on cigarettes. And I do agree that they stink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s