In yesterday’s Herald there was an article about kids not being as active as they should be as they get older.
New Zealand youngsters struggle to stay active in their teen years despite being more sporty than children in many other parts of the world, new research shows.
The physical activity levels of children in 15 countries, including New Zealand, have been assessed in a global Physical Activity Report Card, released today.
According to the results, which grades kids aged 5 to 19 on a range of lifestyle indicators – including how much “screen time” they have and whether they play organised sport, New Zealanders are top-equal with Mozambique when it comes to minutes spent each day in “moderate to vigorous” physical activity.
The results showed about two-thirds of Kiwi children met physical activity guidelines, by doing at least 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity each day – however a breakdown showed the numbers varied significantly with age.
While kids aged 5 to 9 scored an A, meaning nearly all children met physical activity guidelines, this dropped to 78 per cent for those aged 10 to 14. For teens aged 15 to 19, only 32 per cent were found to meet the guideline.
The article goes on to highlight that this is in line with international trends while also kids are spending more time than they should behind a screen that mirror the decline of physical activity. Of course completely unsurprisingly less walking and cycling also appears to be an issue.
A lack of opportunities for physical activity in everyday life, such as walking routes or cycling pathways, could also be contributing to the age-related decline.
“Rather than walking or cycling and using some of the active forms of transport to move around, these age groups are using more motorised forms of transport,” Dr Maddison said.
“Although we like it [New Zealand] to be a very active country and we consider it to be so, we are very car-dependent.”
The change in the percentage of kids cycling to school over the last 25 years is astounding. The two graphs below come from the Ministry of Transport’s Household Travel Survey data and shows the change for the 5-12 age group and 13-17. The second group in particular (and the ones not getting enough exercise) have dropped from 19% to 4%
To me making it safer and easier for kids to ride to school is one of the biggest opportunities we have to help make the city more liveable (and healthier).
Processing...
Wow. I didn’t think the change happened so pronouncedly in the 90s. I thought it was a more gradual process, or had already declinedin the 70s or 80s. Must have been the negative version of the tipping point – once too many drove, the rest also jumped in their mum’s car.
I suspect that most of the decline occurred in early 1994, when a new law forced kids to choose between cycling to school and looking cool…
Don’t forget cheap Japanese imported cars!
Doubt that would suddenly change kids’ travel-to-school habits. But I think the cycle-helmet law triggered an immediate perception-change of cycling as being “dangerous”. Nothing had actually changed ‘on-the-road’, merely the concerns of parents no longer to let their offspring participate in this suddenly “dangerous” activity. Overnight, a pall was cast over attitudes to cycling because of this.
I can only say from the perspective of Chch (which of course used to be probably teh second cycle city in the world) but until I finished school in 1992, almost everyone cycled or walked. Even coming by bus was kind of weird. I never remember worrying about traffic but I do remember passing lots of people by bike on my way to school (well, mostly the girls).
We used to cycle about 12kms each way to rowing practice in summer and to all rugby games for the school. I drove a bit when I was older but not much. If you werent at school early the racks were full and you had to put your bike against a tree (I dont remember ever locking my bike).
Now those same schools have almost no cycle racks and everyone is driven or drives.
I wasnt at school when the helmet law came in but I am sure it had an effect. No doubt that the japanese imports also had a massive influence. My Mum cycled with my sister on the back until we could afford to bguy a car after 1984(?) when the restrictions were lifted.
Not only does this country need more and better walking and cycling facilities, it also needs to go on a reduced car diet.
and despite all these studies showing again and again how great a need there is for people to be active and despite the possible massive savings to NZ’s health budget the current government continues to pump money into more and more motorways.It’s ideological idicoy.
I think it makes sense. Make us fatter and more sick, then privatize the health system. There’s some money to make there.
Children need opportunities for supportive exercise. Winding children up to be All Blacks, Warriors or Olympic champions means that 99% of the country’s children will be failures before they start. There was a time when winning a school or club championship was an achievement for the child. Now it is either the Olympic podium or why bother. Stick with da tinnies.
You clearly are not speaking as the parent of a child currently at school. The scenario you speak of and what actually happens are quite different. Schools are supportive of children and recognise their achievements.
Note the x-axis on the graph is a bit odd – i.e. the difference between the first three items (8 years, 6? years) is different than the rest which are just 1 year. The values shown seem to be 5 year moving averages for the last years (e.g. 2003-2007) but seem to be average in 89/90 and 97/98.
Thus the large drops in the first part of the graph are more gradual than they appear.
Not surprising. Once the ‘helmet lady’ started her tours of, mostly, secondary school in the mid to late 80’s this,was always going to happen. And then they managed to get the helmet law passed. The driver of a car hit her son from behind ffs! What was done about that? Absolutely nothing. Nada. Victim blaming at it’s finest.
Bryce is correct, Mrs. Oaten paraded her poor son around schools telling the pupils to wear helmets or end up like him and scared off a whole generation of children from cycling. Ironically, with the injuries he suffered it’s hardly likely a flimsy plastic cycle helmet would have made much difference – they are not designed for serious crashes! The lady should have directed her energies to driving skills training etc.
Another factor about that time was it became easier to apply for out of zone schools which has led to some children travelling long distances to school because the local one “isn’t good enough”.
There’s a further complicating factor and that is that in 1988 Tomorrow’s Schools essentially introduced competition between schools. Whereas prior to that most kids attended their local schools, with schools competing for students the students themselves became more mobile, and more likely to require delivery to school by car. Of course, cars clogging up the school gates makes it unsafe for other students walking and cycling so parents think they need to deliver their offspring safely to school which means…..you get the drift. If parents were confident their children would get the same education at the local school as the flasher school up the road then a lot of those car trips would no longer be made.
Once again, this does point to the need for people (including children) to be able to walk and cycle easily and safely around their ‘hoods. Fewer motorways, more cycle lanes, please.
If we could reduce the driving age to thirteen we could eliminate the return trip for all those cars. Imagine the environmental savings!
You could easily blame the proliferation of cheap electronic media on this. This blog waxes lyrical about the young people today being the vanguard of a new paradigm in transport with fewer choosing to drive and more taking PT so they can use their smart phones. When we are all glued to our smartphones with a million free games, what do you expect to physical activity rates? The decline in cycling to school is only a small part of a bigger trend in society. If you extrapolate backwards all the kids would have walked to school and walked for much longer distances because they had no choice. And they would have all been involved in sports or physical actvities of some form because there wasn’t anything else to do.
In 1988 Ari? I don’t recall computers being very portable. My FX82a didn’t provide much entertainment either.
Really? You never did the spelling with numbers thing?
No, 2013. Like when the study was done…
A decline in kids cycling to school in the 1980’s doesnt mean net activity declined among teenagers in that period.
Have another look. It is a 25 year trend.