Mark S. TremblaySilvia A. GonzalezPeter T. KatzmarzykOnywera, V.O.John. J. ReillyGrant Tomkinson2015-05-062015-05-062015Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 2015, 12, 297 -2981543-30801543-5474http://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/12583Research ArticleThe importance of physical activity for health is unequivocal,1,2 making its monitoring and surveillance important.3 The harmonization or standardization of measurement and reporting methods is needed to allow for legitimate international comparisons, build research monitoring capacity, and further physical activity surveillance improvements. The development of global recommendations on physical activity for health,2 internationally validated physical activity questionnaires,4,5 and large multicountry surveys6,7 are examples of international collaborations to facilitate global monitoring, surveillance, and comparison efforts. The recent development of “report cards”8 and “country cards”9 are additional examples of methods for international physical activity comparisons. Though well intended, the concurrent production of these new “cards” has created some confusion among physical activity researchers and leaders around the world. A short letter was published in The Lancet10 recently in an attempt to differentiate the “cards” and establish a coordination mechanism between the two initiatives. This brief commentary attempts to expand on this effort.enArticle