Worldwide, public health physical activity guidelines include special emphasis on populations of children (typically 6-11 years) and adolescents (typically 12-19 years). Existing guidelines are commonly expressed in terms of frequency, time, and intensity of behaviour. However, the simple step output from both accelerometers and pedometers is gaining increased credibility in research and practice as a reasonable approximation of daily ambulatory physical activity volume. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to review existing child and adolescent objectively monitored step-defined physical activity literature to provide researchers, practitioners, and lay people who use accelerometers and pedometers with evidence-based translations of these public health guidelines in terms of steps/day. In terms of normative data (i.e., expected values), the updated international literature indicates that we can expect 1) among children, boys to average 12,000 to 16,000 steps/day and girls to average 10,000 to 13,000 steps/day; and, 2) adolescents to steadily decrease steps/day until approximately 8,000-9,000 steps/day are observed in 18-year olds. Controlled studies of cadence show that continuous MVPA walking produces 3,300-3,500 steps in 30 minutes or 6,600-7,000 steps in 60 minutes in 10-15 year olds. Limited evidence suggests that a total daily physical activity volume of 10,000-14,000 steps/day is associated with 60-100 minutes of MVPA in preschool children (approximately 4-6 years of age). Across studies, 60 minutes of MVPA in primary/elementary school children appears to be achieved, on average, within a total volume of 13,000 to 15,000 steps/day in boys and 11,000 to 12,000 steps/day in girls. For adolescents (both boys and girls), 10,000 to 11,700 may be associated with 60 minutes of MVPA. Translations of time- and intensity-based guidelines may be higher than existing normative data (e.g., in adolescents) and therefore will be more difficult to achieve (but not impossible nor contraindicated). Recommendations are preliminary and further research is needed to confirm and extend values for measured cadences, associated speeds, and MET values in young people; continue to accumulate normative data (expected values) for both steps/day and MVPA across ages and populations; and, conduct longitudinal and intervention studies in children and adolescents required to inform the shape of step-defined physical activity dose-response curves associated with various health parameters.

The primary aim of this study was to compare rating of perceived exertion (RPE) values measuring repetitions in reserve (RIR) at particular intensities of 1 repetition maximum (RM) in experienced (ES) and novice squatters (NS). Furthermore, this investigation compared average velocity between ES and NS at the same intensities. Twenty-nine individuals (24.0 ± 3.4 years) performed a 1RM squat followed by a single repetition with loads corresponding to 60, 75, and 90% of 1RM and an 8-repetition set at 70% 1RM. Average velocity was recorded at 60, 75, and 90% 1RM and on the first and last repetitions of the 8-repetition set. Subjects reported an RPE value that corresponded to an RIR value (RPE-10 = 0-RIR, RPE-9 = 1-RIR, and so forth). Subjects were assigned to one of the 2 groups: (a) ES (n = 15, training age: 5.2 ± 3.5 years) and (b) NS (n = 14, training age: 0.4 ± 0.6 years). The mean of the average velocities for ES was slower (p ≤ 0.05) than NS at 100% and 90% 1RM. However, there were no differences (p > 0.05) between groups at 60, 75%, or for the first and eighth repetitions at 70% 1RM. In addition, ES recorded greater RPE at 1RM than NS (p = 0.023). In ES, there was a strong inverse relationship between average velocity and RPE at all percentages (r = -0.88, p < 0.001), and a strong inverse correlation in NS between average velocity and RPE at all intensities (r = -0.77, p = 0.001). Our findings demonstrate an inverse relationship between average velocity and RPE/RIR. Experienced squatter group exhibited slower average velocity and higher RPE at 1RM than NS, signaling greater efficiency at high intensities. The RIR-based RPE scale is a practical method to regulate daily training load and provide feedback during a 1RM test.

The epidemiology of flourishing is an important research topic prompting international interest in its psychometric assessment. But the need to measure human feelings and functioning at the population level has resulted in the creation of a multitude of different conceptual frameworks of flourishing: a term now commonly used to describe high levels of subjective wellbeing. Not only do different researchers theorise and conceptualise flourishing in different ways, but also the categorical diagnosis of flourishing is dependent upon the various combinations of components, and researcher-determined thresholds, used in each operationalization. The multiplicity of approaches is potentially limiting the usefulness of the resultant epidemiology. This paper comprises two parts: Part 1 identifies four operationalizations of flourishing in the psychology literature and reviews their psychometric properties and utility; Part 2 investigates the impact of operational definition on the prevalence of flourishing using the Sovereign Wellbeing Index survey, a sample of 10,009 adult New Zealanders, and reports substantial variation in prevalence rates according to the four different operationalizations: Huppert and So (24%), Keyes (39%), Diener et al. (41%) and Seligman et al. (47%). Huppert and So’s model was the only one of the four to require endorsement of one particular variable, making it the most stringent criterion for flourishing, while the other three were more flexible in their categorisation. Cross-tabulation analysis indicated strong agreement between our replications of Keyes and Seligman et al.’s models (81%), and between Diener et al. and Seligman et al.’s models (80%). Agreement between Seligman, and Huppert and So’s, operationalizations was moderate (74%). Taken together, and in line with recent OECD recommendations, our findings reinforce the need for greater international collaboration and conceptualisation consensus when measuring flourishing. In the absence of any published empirical research investigating perceptions of flourishing among laypersons, a prototype analysis investigating alignment between lay and academic conceptualisations of flourishing is recommended.