Sortwell, AndrewRamirez-Campillo, RodrigoGranacher, UrsJoyce, ChristopherForte, PedroMarinho, D.A.Ferraz, RicardoTrimble, Kevin2026-06-192026-06-192026Sortwell, Andrew; Ramirez-Campillo, Rodrigo; Granacher, Urs; Joyce, Christopher; Forte, Pedro; Marinho, D.A.; Ferraz, Ricardo; Trimble, Kevin (2026). The Health and Physical Education Curriculum: Does It Address Muscular Fitness?. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology. ISSN 2411-5142. 11:1, p. 1-232411-5142http://hdl.handle.net/10198/36909The World Health Organization and the Australian physical activity guidelines, in line with contemporary research, recommend regular muscle-strengthening activities for optimal muscular fitness in children and adolescents. However, the extent to which muscle-strengthening or muscular fitness receives curricular emphasis is unknown in Australia. Objectives: To examine to what extent the Australian Health and Physical Education Curriculum, Foundation to Year 10 (AHPEC; F-10) addresses and/or promotes muscular fitness. Methods: This study involved a mixed-methods content analysis of the AHPEC F-10 using: (i) conceptual analysis to identify muscular fitness-related terms; and (ii) relational analysis to examine alignment between muscular fitness content and curriculum rationale/aims. A search of national and international physical activity guidelines and school-based muscular fitness intervention literature generated a keyword set to guide abstraction from the AHPEC. Curriculum aim, rationale, level descriptions, achievement standards and content were coded to determine the extent to which muscular fitness was embedded. Intercoder reliability was established via consensus meetings. Muscular fitness content coverage was quantified as the proportion of directly aligned muscular fitness relevant content points per stage and aggregated primary (F-6), secondary (7-10), and F-10 scores. Results: A review of 32 national and one international physical activity guidelines identified 88 muscular fitness activities in total, with some activities appearing in multiple guidelines; 53.1% of national guidelines did not provide explicit muscular fitness examples, and where examples existed, they emphasised accessible modes (e.g., climbing, bodyweight tasks, jumping, and lifting). Additionally, analysis of school-based muscular fitness intervention literature identified 22 distinct muscular fitness activities to guide abstraction. Muscular fitness was absent in the AHPEC rationale and aims, was largely inferred in primary years level description and achievement standards and became more explicit in secondary achievement standards. Direct alignment of content with muscular fitness was non-existent or low across stages of learning (Foundation = 0%, Stage 1 = 0%, Stage 2 = 6.1%, Stage 3 = 9.1%, Stage 4 = 8.6%, Stage 5 = 8.8%). Overall, muscular fitness content coverage averaged 3.8% in primary, 8.7% in secondary, and 5.4% across F-10. Conclusions: The AHPEC treats muscular fitness as a low priority in primary schooling and a minor content area in secondary, yielding developmental messaging that is less aligned with contemporary evidence and physical activity guidelines.engMuscle strengthResistance trainingChild healthAdolescent healthPhysical educationjournal article10.3390/jfmk11010040