Rob Noonan

With developments in tactical complexity in association football (soccer) general intelligence and decision-making are becoming increasingly important attributes for players at all levels. However, an absence of evidence regarding general intelligence and decision-making across different positions within English Academy soccer indicates that it is unknown how specific intelligence in soccer needs to be for successful performance. This study aimed to 1) examine differences in general intelligence scores between different playing positions, 2) investigate differences in coach assessed decision-making ability between different playing positions and 3) assess differences between general intelligence test score ranks and decision-making ranks awarded by coaches to each player per position. One hundred and one participants, aged 16–18 years were recruited from eight clubs in the English Football League. Participants completed an established psychometric test of general intelligence and the lead development phase coach at each club ranked players' decision-making ability. There were 99 outfield players who participated: 37 defenders, 34 midfielders and 28 attackers. No difference was found in general intelligence scores between playing positions. However, a significant difference was found in decision-making ranks, with coaches determining attacker's decision-making to be lower than midfielders and defenders. Likewise , no difference was found between general intelligence and decision-making ranks for either defenders or midfielders, but a difference was observed between attackers' general intelligence and decision-making ranks. In conclusion, attacker's game intelligence appears to be underestimated by coaches. Consequently, utilisation of a psychometric test of general intelligence could enhance identification of talented players in Academy soccer.

Limited research has examined whether accumulation of discrimination over time is associated with worse mental health and whether such experiences are related to socioeconomic status (SES).
A sample of UK adults with self-reported discrimination experiences (n = 3863) was taken from 3 waves of the UK Household Longitudinal Study (2015–2020). Multinomial logistic regression assessed associations between SES (income, education, occupation) and cumulative discrimination (number of timepoints discrimination was reported). Logistic regression models assessed prospective associations between cumulative discrimination and probable mental health problems (GHQ-12; 4+ threshold).
Those with lower income were more likely to report discrimination at one timepoint (vs. none). No SES measures were associated with experiencing discrimination at multiple timepoints. Participants who reported one timepoint of discrimination (vs no experiences) were significantly more likely to report probable mental health problems (OR = 1.47, p < .001, 95 % CI 1.20–1.80). However, compared to those experiencing one timepoint, participants reporting multiple timepoints of discrimination were significantly more likely to report probable mental health problems (OR = 1.46, p = .002, 95 % CI 1.15–1.86), indicating a cumulative association between discrimination and mental health. There was limited evidence that SES moderated this cumulative association.
Mental health measures were based on self-report questionnaires and not a clinical diagnosis.
Amongst a sample of UK adults, perceiving discrimination at multiple timepoints increased the likelihood of experiencing probable mental health problems. There was limited evidence that this cumulative association differed by SES. National measures designed to reduce discrimination may benefit mental health.

The dramatic rise in non-communicable diseases around the world but notably in high-income countries like the UK is a manifestation of a global economic system-capitalism-that prioritizes wealth over health. A decade ago, the former WHO Director-General, Margaret Chan highlighted how 'efforts to prevent non-communicable diseases go against the business interests of powerful economic operators' [United Nations. (2013) Take Action for the Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (last accessed 16 February 2024)]. While there is a growing literature on how politics and economics influence population health-for better or worse-less attention has been given to exploring how economic systems like capitalism influence people's psychological well-being. To fill this gap, the following article examines how the continued pursuit of economic growth under capitalism (neoliberal free-market forms especially) impacts well-being through challenging basic psychological needs for security, autonomy, competence and relatedness. In doing so, I hope to shed important light on the sources and possible solutions to our growing health and social problems, and stimulate a conversation on how to achieve a healthier future for us all.

Health inequalities are differences in health between groups in society. Despite them being preventable they persist on a grand scale. At the beginning of 2024, the Institute of Health Equity revealed in their report titled: Health Inequalities, Lives Cut Short, that health inequalities caused 1 million early deaths in England over the past decade. While the number of studies on the prevalence of health inequalities in the UK has burgeoned, limited emphasis has been given to exploring the factors contributing to these (widening) health inequalities. In this commentary article I will describe how the Government's relentless pursuit of economic growth and their failure to implement the necessary regulatory policies to mitigate against the insecurity and health effects neoliberal free market capitalism (referred to as capitalism herein) causes in pursuit of innovation, productivity and growth (economic dynamism) is one key driver underpinning this social injustice. I contend that if the priority really is to tackle health inequalities and ensure health for all then there is an imperative need to move beyond regulation alone to mitigate the worst effects of capitalist production; the goal of the economy has to change to fully restore the balance between economic growth and public health.

Background Significant social and political changes occurred in the UK between 2015-2020. Few studies have examined population level trends in experiencing discrimination and mental health problems during this period.
Aims To determine prevalence trends in perceived discrimination and probable mental health problems amongst UK adults during 2015-2020.
Method Repeated cross-sectional data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study was used to estimate nationally representative trends in perceived discrimination and probable mental health problems (GHQ-12; 4+ threshold) among adults between 2015/2016-2019/2020 (25,756 observations). Weighted logistic regression models with post-estimation margins commands determined changes between survey waves controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. Mediation models explored whether changes in perceived discrimination prevalence trends explained trends in probable mental health problems.Results From 2015/2016 to 2019/2020 perceived discrimination and probable mental health problems increased significantly by 6?1% (95% CI: 3?4-8?8, p Conclusions Amongst UK adults, the prevalence of perceived discrimination and probable mental health problems increased between 2015/2016 to 2019/2020. Increases in perceived discrimination partially explained increases in probable mental health problems. National measures designed to reduce both discrimination and mental health problems have potential to make substantial improvements to public health and should be prioritised in the UK.

Health inequalities are widening, and crises of obesity, physical inactivity and mental health are worsening around the world. Yet there remains a reluctance to discuss the threat capitalism poses to health and wellbeing. Offering a unique contribution to the field, Capitalism, Health and Wellbeing: Rethinking Economic Growth for a Healthier, Sustainable Future addresses the elephant in the room: economic growth.Challenging this crucial yet overlooked issue, author Rob Noonan contends that the drive for economic growth is at odds with the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals to achieve a better and more sustainable future. He argues that if the 'health for all' goal is to be achieved, it is imperative to redesign the economic system and social progress metrics that promote productivity and consumption at the expense of health and wellbeing. While clearly outlining the challenges governments face, Noonan offers solutions on how we can reverse the accelerating trends of obesity, physical inactivity and poor mental health, as well as how we can use scientific understanding and history to improve public health and reduce health inequalities.Rooted in thoughtful evidence and achievable actions, this work empowers readers to contribute to positive transformation and create a healthier, more just and more sustainable world.

Physical inactivity is among the most formidable public health challenges of our time. The World Health Organization recently revealed that physical inactivity is on the rise and predicted that globally, there will be around 500 million new cases of preventable non-communicable diseases between 2020 and 2030 if physical inactivity levels remain as they are. But why? What’s driving this formidable public health challenge? In this commentary article, I illustrate how the continual pursuit of economic growth is a key driver underpinning physical inactivity at the population level. I contend that if the priority really is to address physical inactivity at the population level, then the metrics we use to define social progress will need recalibrating

Physical activity improves physical and mental well-being and reduces mortality risk. However, only a quarter of adults globally meet recommended physical activity levels for health. Two common initiatives in the UK are Couch-to-5k (an app-assisted 9-week walk/run programme) and parkrun (a free, weekly, timed 5-km walk/run). It is not known how these initiatives are linked, how Couch-to-5k parkrunners compare to parkrunners, and the extent to which this influences their parkrun performance. The aims were to compare the characteristics and motives and to compare physical activity levels, parkrun performance and the impact of parkrun between Couch-to-5k parkrunners and parkrunners. Three thousand two hundred and ninety six Couch-to-5k parkrunners were compared to 55,923 parkrunners to explore age, sex, ethnicity, employment status, neighbourhood deprivation, motives, physical activity levels, parkrun performance and the impact of parkrun. Couch-to-5k parkrunners were slightly older, more likely to be female and work part-time, but similar in ethnicity, and neighbourhood deprivation compared with other parkrunners. Couch-to-5k parkrunners had different motives for participation and reported high levels of physical activity at registration, which remained to the point of survey completion. This group had slower parkrun times but, when registered for a year, completed a similar number of runs (11) per year. Larger proportions of Couch-to-5k parkrunners perceived positive impacts compared with other parkrunners and 65% of Couch-to-5k parkrunners reported improvements to their lifestyle. parkrun appears to be an effective pathway for those on the Couch-to-5k programme, and the promising positive association between the two initiatives may be effective in assisting previously inactive participants to take part in weekly physical activity

Purpose: This study used photovoice methodology to explore women’s lived experiences of gym-based resistance training, and the potential mechanisms by which resistance training may promote wellbeing.
Methods: Ten women aged between 18 and 27 years from various locations across England each generated a total of three photographs illustrating 1) what they like and 2) what they dislike about gym-based resistance training, and 3) what gym-based resistance training means to them, and completed a subsequent photo-elicitation telephone interview via Zoom video conferencing software. Data were analysed through an iterative deductive and inductive process, firstly using Ryff’s psychological wellbeing model (Ryff, 1989) as a thematic framework, and then inductively to further explore the data.
Results: Five themes linking gym-based resistance training and mental health and wellbeing were identified: (1) self-acceptance, (2) personal growth, (3) flow state, (4) social affiliation and (5) autonomy. Through engaging in resistance training participants exercise self-direction (i.e., autonomy) and have the opportunity to develop positive relations with like-minded others. The activity itself can facilitate the achievement of the “flow state” of mind. The setting, pursuit and achievement of meaningful “intrinsic goals” can result in feelings of personal growth and realisation a more positive self-regard.
Conclusion: Gym-based resistance training provides various paths to wellbeing. Greater emphasis of these wellbeing benefits in public health messaging may encourage more women to engage in gym-based resistance training.