It can be easy to underestimate the role of global data in physical activity promotion. Without good data, we have difficulty knowing how active people are, what levels of physical activity might be considered desirable (for health benefits for example), how many (and who) meet criterion levels of physical activity (such as meeting guidelines), and what trends are evident, if any, as a result of promotion initiatives or societal changes.

There is a call for more surveillance efforts to include device-based rather than just self-reported assessments. Of course, device-based methods will yield more valid and reliable assessments than those derived from self-reported methods. But this is only for certain types of physical activity, and usually just basic ambulatory movement when using accelerometers or pedometers. It is increasingly being recognised that muscle strengthening activity is important, yet devices to assess engagement in this form of physical activity do not exist. An optimal strategy is to engage both devices and reported methods, depending on the nature of the assessments required (Troiano et al., 2012). Moreover, it should be recognised that if devices become the norm, the current guidelines may need to change. All international and national guidelines are based on behavioural data, and associated links to health outcomes, derived from self-reported methods.

A recent trend is to give greater visibility to a whole systems approach and to appreciate the complexity of physical activity behaviours and promotion. The individual approach that dominated early efforts in physical activity behaviour change has given way to the recognition that people operate in, and are influenced by, multiple environments and agencies. For example, it is unlikely to be enough just to educate or motivate people for behaviour change. Multiple systems must be tackled, including the social and cultural context they are in, their physical environment, and individual characteristics (e.g., age, sex, socioeconomic status, activity history, personal preferences), as well as different types of physical activity that might be engaged in. The authors of the Target paper rightly highlight the importance of engaging the diverse sectors and agencies reflected in a complex systems map. In addition, I would encourage more emphasis be placed by physical activity implementation scientists on how best we actually engage not only societal sectors and agencies, but also individual participants within the interventions we establish and monitor. Sometimes we may expect too much from people when we ask participants to adopt various behaviour change techniques, such as goal-setting, keeping a logbook, or self-monitoring with a device. There is a good argument for emphasising behaviour change that involves low cognitive effort where possible.

The psychology of physical activity has certainly relied too heavily on a narrow range of theories (Biddle & Vergeer, 2019). It is wholly appropriate to reconsider this and give much greater recognition to theories that are more aligned with automatic processing. That said, in many cases both automatic and reflective approaches will be required for behaviour change (Michie et al., 2011). Moreover, interactions with environments need to be assessed, such as when environments prompt more automatic responses. In addition, it is necessary to recognise that less cognitive processing will only be possible in some situations once the context and behaviour becomes more familiar to the individual. This also supports the idea that environmental facilitators will be required. Unfortunately, there are many unhelpful environments that require a great deal of conscious planning to take place in order for physical activity to be initiated. Conversely, many environments naturally encourage sedentary behaviours, requiring individuals to operate more cognitive effort to break such behavioural habits.

Recognising the importance of affective states and feelings in physical activity is essential. It has not had the emphasis it deserves. How we can manipulate physical activity experiences and contexts to better produce positive affect is challenging. We have all experienced a history of messages implying the unpleasantness of exercise or physical activity, and these may be difficult to expunge. These might include no pain, no gain, exercise as punishment (last in, 10 press-ups), or images of military-style drill. A selling point for a food product would almost certainly include tasting nice (imagine what would happen if it didn’t). This should be prioritised for physical activity too. Moreover, this should go beyond mere enjoyment (Biddle et al., 2021) and include other feelings – mood, vitality, well-being, connection, control etc. (Segar et al., 2016).

Drawing on the example of COVID-19 causing behavioural disruption, the Target article raises the very interesting point about a need to shift between automatic and reflective forms of processing and motivation. Whether we can achieve truly flexible habits remains to be seen, but the concept of being flexible and adaptive is a good one and has probably not been given sufficient attention. Seeking multiple opportunities for being active is probably key here – being able to be active in the home, through active travel, at work, and in leisure time.

There is little doubt that new technologies provide huge possibilities for behaviour change. These can be multifaceted and include electronic (“e”) and mobile (“m”) mediated approaches and involve the internet, phones and apps, social media, wearable physical activity trackers, and just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs; Hardeman et al., 2019). Interestingly, systematic reviews of e-health and m-health approaches in physical activity show only small to moderate effects, suggesting that greater efforts may be needed regarding participant engagement and retention. We have argued that a greater understanding is needed on how to maximise their effectiveness as a standalone intervention or as part of multicomponent intervention (Biddle et al., 2021). This might involve researching the cognitive effort required and level of intrusiveness perceived.

Promoting physical activity is a vitally important requirement in contemporary society, and not just for reasons of health. But we need to think broadly, as the commendable Target article has done, and continue to explore a range of possibilities across multiple systems.