Making a difference and Merry Christmas

A few weeks ago I raised the issue of a BHF report condemning the fact leisure centres offered unhealthy food options. I remember thinking at the time that this was a thorny issue and that perhaps we might be guilty of this, to a lesser or greater extent.

However, having obtained some fantastic feedback from over 20 individual leisure centres and a number of the Contract management groups (a big thank you to every one of you, because your feed back was invaluable), I realise that we have no reason to be apologetic.

We met with the BHF earlier this week and told them that

• 100% of respondents told us that they offer healthy food options

• 25% do not offer chips or chocolates and only retail healthy drinks

• 65% offer low sugar/low fat foods, as well as non-fat fried crisps

What was interesting was the fact that Consumer choose to buy:

• 25-40% more Coke than health drinks

• 66-100% more chocolate bars than health bars

These were the facts. But more importantly was the issue of effecting behavioural change. A very strong theme in all the responses was the fact that we cannot force consumers to eat healthily. We must allow them to choose to do so by underpinning choice options with engaging and informative education. As one respondent said, “Removing choice drives them round the corner to satisfy their needs – after all, prohibition didn’t stop Americans drinking alcohol in the 30s.”

The arguments were compelling and BHF could not fault the logic. To give you a feel for the responses:

o “Whilst we can influence people’s purchasing choices, we do need to meet our customer’s needs.”

o “.......we mustn’t patronise them or force their choice.”

o “We cannot force our customers to buy something they personally do not find appealing”

o “....foods like chips, pizzas and burgers sell more. If these were taken off the menu then the cafe would close.”

o “There is no question that cutting income received through vending machines would directly affect the service we would be able to offer. During lean economic times perceived luxuries, such as leisure centre membership, are often the first costs to be looked at by families and therefore maximising income in the current climate is of paramount importance.”

The good news is that the BHF has agreed to work closer with us moving forward – at FIA CMO/BHF Associate Medical Director level: giving us sight of future reports before they are publicized: offering to help us develop guidelines for POI/POS.

Addressing adverse commentary is half the battle: preventing negative commentary is the other half so with the New Year around the corner and in anticipation of the media backlash as per my last blog entry, get those case studies over as quick as possible. The BHF response shows that when we unite together we will be listened to.

Finally this is it from me until January so wishing you all a Merry Christmas. Tonight is the Promote PR Christmas party I suspect the BHF would not rejoice at the much anticipated excesses we will all enjoy but hey Ho it Christmas, time for the “Calorie in” brigade to rejoice!

David Stalker

Executive Director at the FIA

LET THE PUBLIC SPEAK

‘Exercise in middle age can cause arthritis’ screamed the headline and sure enough, some PhD in California decided that after talking to 236 45-55 year olds, over exercising caused most damage to their knees – therefore“...a high risk factor...” for arthritis.


Walking, sports and even gardening could trigger osteoarthritis – the learned PhD went on to conclude.

The common sense rebuttal was as compelling as it was forthright “We have known for years that certain high impact sports and jobs are associated with an increased risk of osteoarthritis ...but for the vast majority of people exercise is good...it’s a matter of balance and sensible moderation .....The risk of developing osteoarthritis as a result of too much exercise is outweighed by the risk of being overweight and sedentary.”

Job done, the response came from ‘a spokesperson for the Arthritis Research Campaign’.

As I read this two things struck me:

- I am so sick of reading shock-horror claims, based on some spurious research, from a thesis-writing-publicity-hungry ‘expert’, based on counter-intuitive thinking ... such as exercise is bad for you..... Exercise has no effect on obese children..... Leisure centres should be banned from offering chips (even though they also offer lots of fruit & veg choices and their customers would just go down the road to buy their chips anyway!)

- Why do the media give these guys airtime/column inches?

I guess it’s the price we pay for democracy.

However, what was particularly pleasing about this article was that the rebuttal did not come from someone in our sector (and therefore be dismissed with the ‘well, you would say that wouldn’t you’ claim), but from a third party expert.

If ever I needed proof that we have to point our CMO at all the Royal Colleges and disease NGOs to ensure that they promote the benefits of exercise on our behalf, this was it. So John (Searle, our Chief Medical Officer), get on your bike and keep pedalling until all our ‘strategic partners’ do as good a job as the Arthritis Research Campaign.

The strongest and most compelling cases are often the case studies and real life changing stories that are common place in our industry. So with New Year approaching and the inevitable press backlash at all things fitness, please send in your stories and help your governing body drive forward the Fitness industry as the most important part of the UK’s health agenda.

David Stalker
Executive Director
Fitness Industry Association