Random Thoughts on High School PE

It’s February and that means its healthy heart month and an opportune time to focus on cardiovascular functioning. That reminds me . . . fresh out of Cortland, in 1967, I set out to teach my girls (gym was not coed then) about their hearts. It seems I was ahead of my time. I didn't feel that way though, not when my adolescent years were filled with images of the glamorous, vigorous President Kennedy who challenged our nation to fitness. I'd taken him seriously so with degree in hand, a teaching job in a suburban junior high, and his mission etched in my soul, I set out to teach about healthy hearts.

Almost as soon as my girls had lockers (and that was a story in itself and well covered in my new book), I gave the Carlson Fatigue Test, the only test with norms for males and females in a wide range of ages. It would provide, I thought, a standard that my kids’ performance could be compared to. The story, told in Too Dangerous to Teach will have you rolling it was so funny, but the fact is that I was unable to provide comparative information because there wasn't any for anyone under 18. Not until the NYS Physical Fitness test appeared (available in Complete Physical Education Plans for Grades 7–12) did JHS statistics become available. Unfortunately, though that test served a purpose, it did not explain healthy hearts.

I'm not sure if comparative statistics for young hearts exists even today (please let me know if it does) or even if we'd use it if we had it. First, numbers are not finite, not even the 220 rate we use in calculating optimal work rate during aerobics. (“‘Maximum’ Heart Rate Theory is Challenged,” NY Times, 4/24/01). Secondly, many of us have been discouraged from discussing substandard performance much less measuring it. While focusing on nurturing few of us have asked kids to step out of the box and try harder.

We must be weary of that. Not only is there a fine line between nurturing and enabling but reinforcement from family, teachers and friends doesn't always create the strong self image we intend, not when kids face a mirror and feedback from peers and strangers who are not nearly as gracious. Being politically correct while children develop life styles that threaten their health and longevity is self–defeating. So, we must ask ourselves, are we enabling the overweight and lazy? How can we acceptably challenge our students to improve their body image? Can we find healthy tools that will get kids away from their computers and TV soaps after school? I don’t have all the answers. What I know is what we should do.

We should set healthy goals, let kids and parents know when students fall below them, encourage students to get in shape, provide them with a broad range of activities to peak their interest, encourage mastery, and make sure every lesson calls for lots of movement in a happy environment. If we are to promote healthy hearts, we must make physical activity productive, fun and ego–involving. We can’t simply motivate on the basis of health issues, nor can we depend on monitors, machines and health club style workouts to make our case. If we don’t make activity exciting and social, lessons about healthy hearts will fall on deaf ears because kids by nature don't look ahead however sincere we are when we try to get them to. Kids live for the moment. Knowing that, we must make use of the moment and in that time, convince them not only that they should, but that they can, and that they’ll enjoy too.

Isobel Kleinman
Secondary Section Editor

Recognizing that “Schools are the place to reach the vast majority of children,” Moag–Stahlberg, executive director of Action for Healthy Kids (AFHK), a non–profit coalition of 39 government agencies and organizations chaired by David Satcher, the former US Surgeon General thinks we can respond to all our needs, financial restraint, academic testing and making kids healthy. They invite a visit to www.ActionForHealthyKids.org for innovative ways to help schools make a difference. (NEAToday, January 2004, p.16)

Duke University found that mental stress tests were better at predicting heart problems than physical testing alone and says Dr. Blumenthal, “Reducing mental stress might reduce the risk for future cardiac events.” (NY Times, June 6, 1996)

Tailored exercise benefits those with severe hypertension. (“Good Moves for High Blood Pressure,” Health, March, 1996).

Exercise brings down cholesterol levels ... according to the American Heart Association journal, Circulation. (“Cardiac Regimen Aides Women Most,” NY Times, 1995)

“Resistance training offers significant benefits to health and fitness beyond cutting and shaping of muscles,” said Dr. Barry A. Franklin, director of cardiac rehabilitation at William Beaumont Hospital. “If muscles are stronger, a person’s heart rate and blood pressure response will be lower, creating less demand on the heart when something is lifted.” (“Lifting Regimen for a Healthier Heart” NY Times, 3/21/00)

The recovery rate of the heart after exercise is a simple measure of cardiovascular health. People with heart disease have a rate drop of less than 12 beats a minute after exercise. Healthy rate drops average 20 beats per minute. Elite athletes’ rates can drop as much as 50 beats in a minute. Studies show that people with recovery rates of less than 12 beats per minute after exercise are 4X more likely to be at risk for death within 6 years. (“With Heartbeats, Slow is Good, Steady is Not So Good,” NY Times, 6/24/01)

Polar heart rate monitors provide the means for quantitative testing and will help in implementing wellness instruction during physical education programs. (Department of Defense Selects Polar Heart Rate Monitors for New Physical Education Program, PEAK PERFORMANCE, Vol 5, #3, Fall 2001.)