Response to Daly-Smith et al.’s commentary on ‘The Daily Mile makes primary school children more active, less sedentary and improves their fitness and body composition: a quasi-experimental pilot study’

Abstract

We thank Daly-Smith et al. for taking the time to read the results of our pilot research study, describing it as an important and welcome contribution. Nonetheless, the authors argue six points against our conclusion. We contend that we addressed three of these points in our original discussion and disagree with their remaining points. Overall, their Commentary adds little to the topic of research into the Daily Mile™ that we had not already raised in our discussion. Additionally, they attribute statements to us that we did not make and ignore the raising of key issues in our original article. Given this, we stand by our original peer-reviewed conclusion that introducing the Daily Mile™ to the primary school day appears to be an effective intervention for increasing levels of moderate to vigorous physical activity, reducing sedentary time, increasing physical fitness and improving body composition, and that these findings have relevance for teachers, policy-makers, public health practitioners and health researchers.

The Effect of The Daily Mile on Primary School Children’s Aerobic Fitness Levels After 12 Weeks: A Controlled Trial

“…Our results are in line with those of other recent controlled trials examining The Daily Mile's impact on children's aerobic fitness [12,13]. Brustio et al [13] used the same intervention period (i.e., 12 weeks) as our study and also included a large sample of children.…”

“…Moreover, their participants were slightly younger (6-9 years old) than the participants in our study (8-12 years old). Differences in study design (i.e., small sample sizes and unequal dose-response time between the control group and intervention group) also prevent us from directly comparing our results with those of Chesham et al [12]. Contrary to our study, neither Chesham et al [12] nor Brustio et al [13] provided schools with implementation instructions regarding a minimal performance frequency for The Daily Mile.…”

“…Differences in study design (i.e., small sample sizes and unequal dose-response time between the control group and intervention group) also prevent us from directly comparing our results with those of Chesham et al [12]. Contrary to our study, neither Chesham et al [12] nor Brustio et al [13] provided schools with implementation instructions regarding a minimal performance frequency for The Daily Mile. Brustio et al [13] reported that schools performed The Daily Mile on average three times a week, and Chesham et al [12] did not report the performance frequency.…”

“…Two studies have previously investigated the effects of The Daily Mile on aerobic fitness. Chesham et al [12] found that performing The Daily Mile for five months increased 20-meter Shuttle Run Test (SRT) scores in 4-to 12-year-old Scottish children. Brustio et al [13] showed that the 6-minute run test scores of 6-to 9-year-old Italian children significantly improved after three months of performing The Daily Mile.…”

“…Although data on the effectiveness of The Daily Mile in improving children's aerobic fitness is promising, the evidence remains limited. Daly-Smith et al [14] expressed their concerns regarding the small sample and unequal dose-response conditions in the study by Chesham et al [12]. Brustio et al [13] investigated children from five schools in one region of Italy, with identical educational curricula and similar facilities.…”