In the Target Article titled “What is needed to promote physical activity? – Current trends and new perspectives in theory, intervention, and implementation” (Hohberg et al., 2022) the pandemic of persisting insufficient physical activity was addressed. Along these lines, the Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018-2030 (GAPPA) was presented which includes the current physical activity recommendations as well as twenty policy actions (World Health Organization, 2018). More specifically, taking a whole systems approach for intervention development and implementation was exemplified without losing sight of the individual for successful physical activity promotion. Furthermore, the Affective-Reflective Theory (ART) of physical inactivity and exercise (Brand & Ekkekakis, 2018) was explained and the increased inclusion of this theory in physical activity promotion interventions was recommended. Lastly, the use of micro-temporal data was highlighted to examine the underlying processes of flexibly shifting between automatic and controlled processes of physical activity behavior, which may also provide the opportunity for effective interventions (Hohberg et al., 2022).

The comments revealed that these aspects of physical activity promotion in times of stagnating physical activity levels are considered important and worthwhile for the future of the field. There is agreement to further develop these aspects around the measurement of physical activity, theories, interventions, and implementation.

There appears to be a consensus, that where possible, utilizing wearable technology to assess physical activity and generate device-measured physical activity data should be used. However, this does not replace the contribution of self-report, and thus a combination of both self-report and device-measures is suggested (Biddle, 2022). The authors of the Target Article agree, and stress that self-report can assess different outcomes to devices, for example muscle strength and conditioning or flexibility, thereby complementing device-based assessment. Therefore, self-report continues to be very valuable from a holistic perspective of physical activity. A decision framework for identifying suitable physical activity questionnaires for various populations has been presented recently based on an expert consensus on best practice and future directions (Nigg et al., 2020). The aim was to provide information useful for the standardization in field of self-reported physical activity and also to encourage the strategic combination of physical activity assessment methods as deemed situationally appropriate (Nigg et al., 2020). Questionnaires can, for example, be combined with accelerometers, which measure intensity and amount of physical activity as well as amount of sedentary behavior and sleep (Burchartz et al., 2020). Questionnaires add information on type of behavior, which is valuable in terms of comprehensive surveillance of physical activity and is necessary for intervention design. Along these lines, a combination of assessment methods would indeed be ideal to capture all aspects of physical activity behavior accurately. Additionally, it is recommended that researchers ensure the appropriate fit between the selected method and construct to be measured to produce not only a comprehensive but also accurate results (Brand et al., 2022).

On the topic of a whole systems approach, it was mentioned that an emphasis may still be placed on the individual (Biddle, 2022; Rhodes, 2022). While this is true, the purpose of the Target Article was to draw attention to the importance of the context within which any physical activity opportunity takes place. In addition, the authors recommend using implementation science to help bridge the gap between the evidence of what works in theory and what is delivered in practice in a systematic and scientific way once the intervention is running. However, in line with the comments, a focus on the individual is also outlined in the Target Article within the four pillars of evidence-based practice including “participant evidence” (Hohberg et al., 2022). It has been said that active collaboration with participants is not only a vital part of evidence-based practice but also prone to being overlooked (Drisko, 2017). Attempts are being made to understand participants’ experience better and include these in intervention refinement. As for example, in a qualitative study conducted to explore the experience of people with Major Depressive Disorder receiving a physical activity counseling intervention. It was found that the degree of participation in the intervention was linked to initial mindset towards physical activity and individual illness management and recommendations were to consider these aspects more closely in future attempts to promote physical activity (Cody et al., 2022). Conclusions drawn from this evidence are in line with self-enactable techniques for self-management mentioned in the comments (Ntoumanis, 2022). Self-management has been identified not only as vital for living with chronic illness but also with initiating and maintaining health behavior (Lorig & Holman, 2003). Lastly, it was mentioned in the comments that with the use of technology, interventions, which are highly tailored to the individual and delivered in the appropriate moment in time (just-in-time [adaptive] intervention) can be designed (Biddle, 2022; Rhodes, 2022; Schwarzer, 2022).

On the topic of dual system or process approaches, the interaction between the environment and automatic processes was mentioned (Biddle, 2022). The authors agree that the physical environment can influence affective responses to physical activity in an important way. Not only do environmental cues offer support in the formation of habitual health behavior (Gardner et al., 2012) but may also aid the creation of positive associations between a particular context and behavior (Rebar et al., 2016). For example, a systematic review has shown that people who report not enjoying physical activity are more likely to be physically active in environments with better aesthetics (Rhodes et al., 2018).

It was mentioned in the comments that flexible habits, may not only be defined as switching between automatic and controlled processes, but also as behaviors not fixed to strict routines and so less susceptible to unexpected barriers (Ntoumanis, 2022). This suggestion is in line with the described flexibility required for behavioral maintenance in the Target Article. Building habits based on flexible routines, however, may contradict past work on habit formation that emphasized repeated exposures to consistent contextual cues such as location and time of day (Wood et al., 2002). The uncertain conditions evoked by the COVID-19 pandemic may require the management of the interruption of contextual cues, depletion of psychological resources and diminishing of intrinsic motives (Hohberg et al., 2022). It is indeed, as described in the comments, an issue of finding the ideal balance between consistency and flexibility, which also includes offering alternative opportunities to be physically active. Perhaps in some cases, being flexible in the face of unexpected challenges will need to become a habit in itself, which needs to be developed and reinforced. The concept of self- and social identity to promote physical activity maintenance beyond habit formation (Rhodes, 2022) was not discussed in the Target Article, but is also considered of high relevance by the authors. It would be useful in future to explore the role of identity as a higher-order construct that enables more flexible habits when conditions are uncertain.

The concept of affect has been part of many preceding social-cognitive theories (positive and negative outcome expectancies, diffuse risk perception, affect-loaded self-efficacy) as well as alternative current theories (The Affect and Health Behavior Framework (Stevens et al., 2020), The Theory of Effort Minimization (Cheval & Boisgontier, 2021). In line with this, it has been said that despite the value of accentuating affect increasingly in future, reflective processes may still need to be emphasized (Rhodes, 2022). In particular, the concept of self-regulation was highlighted, which also constitutes part of the Affective-Reflective Theory of physical inactivity and exercise (Brand & Ekkekakis, 2018). While the authors agree that the term “affect” has been used as an umbrella term in most earlier cognitivist theories, so far not enough consideration has been given to the core affective feelings in exercise science and psychology. These core affective feelings arise directly from the body during physical activity and exercise, i.e. as a direct consequence of the cardiovascular activation resulting therefrom (Ekkekakis & Brand, 2021). Core affect has been defined as a simple, primitive and non-reflective neurophysiological state that is conveyed to the conscious mind as a pleasant or unpleasant feeling (Russell & Barrett, 2009). This needs to be addressed as an entity on its own, and not merely the accessory or result of more complex cognitive operations. It is important to differentiate between affective processes before, during and after physical activity, which may have varying effects on the behavioral decision-making process. As for example, affectively-charged motivation, which is to be considered separately from an affective response during a behavior, may influence both the decision to exercise as well as the subsequent affective response felt during physical activity (Do et al., 2022) This is also exemplified in evidence showing that creating a more pleasurable physical activity experience by ramping intensity down during exercise leads to enhanced post-exercise, remembered as well as forecasted pleasure (Zenko et al., 2016). Findings such as these align well with the assumed relevance of cognitivist constructs such as affective attitudes and positive outcome expectations (see for example Conner et al., 2020) which, as shown, have a positive effect on self-efficacy and intention. However, addressing the pleasure felt during exercise may not be achieved with techniques to strengthen reflective processes (Ekkekakis et al., 2020).

Although interventions including self-regulation techniques, particularly those derived from control theory, have been suggested as particularly important to increase physical activity motivation (Knittle et al., 2018), generally the efficacy of theory-based physical activity interventions to date have been classified as small (standardized mean differences ranging between 0.2 and 0.3; Bernard et al., 2017). These effect sizes are comparable with a mere measurement effect, i.e. the observed change in physical activity by simply measuring it (Miles et al., 2020). In addition, it may even be said, according to some meta-analytic data, that whether or not there is an underlying psychological theory, has no bearing on the observed change in physical activity behavior (Gourlan et al., 2016; McEwan et al., 2019). Hence, there is a call to utilize the above described affective theory drawing on the unique experiential nature of physical activity during which immediate effects can be felt in the body and address exactly this in future interventions (Hohberg et al., 2022). This, in turn, is in line with recommendations in the comments stating that affective processes may have been understated in interventions thus far (Ntoumanis, 2022) and future intervention designs may consider reducing the cognitive load for participants (Biddle, 2022).

Looking to the future, if physical activity data do become predominantly device-based, recommendations may need to be revised because they are currently based largely on self-report. On the mission of promoting physical activity both the context, including the system and where the individual sits within the system should be taken into consideration. There is a need for more investigation into targeting affective responses to physical activity within interventions. For this purpose, emerging technologies are particularly useful. At the same time, interventions based on technology require further exploration regarding how they are experienced by the recipients. As a result, this will change the way we communicate about physical activity and exercise, especially in terms not only of physical but psychological health benefits. Along these lines, it may be time to support individuals to find meaning and identity in movement, foster flexibility and offer multiple opportunities for physical activity in every-day life.