Nice post, and I like the short snappy sections for quick reading—thanks!
My main reflection is whether this is actually a neglected? Exercise is a huge industry, and I feel the psychological benefits as well as the physical are quite often utilised in marketing and advertising (though I may be biased given I go to the gym quite regularly). Perhaps the specific link to depression is leveraged less, but I feel its there by proxy in a lot of cases.
I guess a fairer question would be: what would need to exist, that doesn’t currently, for this to be assessed as not a neglected issue?
Great point! And really appreciate the feedback on the sections—first post so good to know it works!
I totally agree. It’s somewhat of a dichotomy to me too… This massive presence of fitness as industry, and its relative absence when talking about psychological intervention.
Not Explicit Enough. The ‘Neglectedness’ comes for me by the connection not being made explicit enough — or, it’s made explicit by corporate fitness side, but not the therapeutic side. And so it is only administered through market forces, not medical forces. This quite fundamental and medically impactful activity has been left to companies to fulfil. Which also means the infrastructure only exists where it’s profitable to build it.
Institutional Distance. I guess we’ve seen a privatization of exercise. And the body of research that will prove its effects in the treatment field is only gaining traction now. It doesn’t have the robust, well-researched, institutionalised presence that other embodied treatments like mindfulness have gained.
Refined Interventions. Research would refine the interventions through medical-grade testing, something that corporate gyms approximate through popularity I guess. And it would make them available Where the patients are, and where it’s most needed. This is crucial, since I know for me the biggest barrier is always convenience.
Attitude Change. I think we also need to drive a wider change of attitude around exercise. Most of the public narrative around fitness has for decades been so focused on body-image, burning calories, or performance, the denial of pain and emotion, even self-punishment. These narratives can actively exclude those who struggle with any of these aspects. But luckily there are other ways of framing, which as you mentioned are now starting to show up in marketing—longevity benefits, ‘fitness a as feeling’, community etc. Great to see!
Bit long response but loved your question! Hadn’t actually considered this privatisation issue before. Guess state-sponsored exercise has a bit dark connotation—prisons, regimes… or just those lousy playpark gyms. Would be curious what your take is!
Nice post, and I like the short snappy sections for quick reading—thanks!
My main reflection is whether this is actually a neglected? Exercise is a huge industry, and I feel the psychological benefits as well as the physical are quite often utilised in marketing and advertising (though I may be biased given I go to the gym quite regularly). Perhaps the specific link to depression is leveraged less, but I feel its there by proxy in a lot of cases.
I guess a fairer question would be: what would need to exist, that doesn’t currently, for this to be assessed as not a neglected issue?
Great point! And really appreciate the feedback on the sections—first post so good to know it works!
I totally agree. It’s somewhat of a dichotomy to me too… This massive presence of fitness as industry, and its relative absence when talking about psychological intervention.
Not Explicit Enough. The ‘Neglectedness’ comes for me by the connection not being made explicit enough — or, it’s made explicit by corporate fitness side, but not the therapeutic side. And so it is only administered through market forces, not medical forces. This quite fundamental and medically impactful activity has been left to companies to fulfil. Which also means the infrastructure only exists where it’s profitable to build it.
Institutional Distance. I guess we’ve seen a privatization of exercise. And the body of research that will prove its effects in the treatment field is only gaining traction now. It doesn’t have the robust, well-researched, institutionalised presence that other embodied treatments like mindfulness have gained.
Refined Interventions. Research would refine the interventions through medical-grade testing, something that corporate gyms approximate through popularity I guess. And it would make them available Where the patients are, and where it’s most needed. This is crucial, since I know for me the biggest barrier is always convenience.
Attitude Change. I think we also need to drive a wider change of attitude around exercise. Most of the public narrative around fitness has for decades been so focused on body-image, burning calories, or performance, the denial of pain and emotion, even self-punishment. These narratives can actively exclude those who struggle with any of these aspects. But luckily there are other ways of framing, which as you mentioned are now starting to show up in marketing—longevity benefits, ‘fitness a as feeling’, community etc. Great to see!
Bit long response but loved your question! Hadn’t actually considered this privatisation issue before. Guess state-sponsored exercise has a bit dark connotation—prisons, regimes… or just those lousy playpark gyms. Would be curious what your take is!