UNISTEP (University Students Exercise and Physical Activity) Study: A Pilot Study of the Effects of Accumulating 10,000 Steps on Health and Fitness Among University Students.

BACKGROUND: Recent public health initiatives have promoted accumulating 10,000 steps per day. Little previous research has evaluated its effects in young adults. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of taking 10,000 steps per day on fitness and cardiovascular risk factors in sedentary university students. METHODS: Healthy, sedentary students (mean age 21.16 ± SD 6.17) were randomly allocated to take 10,000 steps per day or to a control group who maintained their habitual activity. Members of the 10,000 step group wore a pedometer and reported daily step count in a diary. Outcome measurements (20-meter multistage shuttle run, BMI, and blood pressure) were measured before and after 6 weeks. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups at baseline. After 6 weeks, the 10,000 steps group were taking significantly more steps (8824.1 ± SD 5379.3 vs. 12635.9 ± SD 6851.3; P = .03).No changes were observed in fitness, or BMI (P > .05). Significant reductions in blood pressure (P = .04) in the 10,000 step group. CONCLUSIONS: A daily target of 10,000 steps may be an appropriate intervention in sedentary university students to increase their physical activity levels. The positive health benefits of simple everyday physical activity should be promoted among health professionals.

Doping, sport and the law: time for repeal of prohibition?

This article concerns the legal issues that surround the prohibition of doping in sport. The current policy on the use of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) in sport is underpinned by both a paternalistic desire to protect athletes’ health and the long-term integrity or ‘spirit’ of sport. The policy is put into administrative effect globally by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which provides the regulatory and legal framework through which the vast majority of international sports federations harmonise their anti-doping programmes. On outlining briefly both the broad administrative structures of international sport’s various anti-doping mechanisms, and specific legal issues that arise in disciplinary hearings involving athletes accused of doping, this article questions the sustainability of the current ‘zero tolerance’ approach, arguing, by way of analogy to the wider societal debate on the criminalisation of drugs, and as informed by Sunstein and Thaler’s theory of libertarian paternalism, that current policy on anti-doping has failed. Moreover, rather than the extant moral and punitive panic regarding doping in sport, this article, drawing respectively on Seddon’s and Simon’s work on the history of drugs and crime control mentality, contends that, as an alternative, harm reductionist measures should be promoted, including consideration of the medically supervised use of certain PEDs.