Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sitting Down Too Long Is Bad Even If You Exercise

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the get-a-move-on dept.

Medicine 376

Ant tips the week-old news that sitting down too much is not good for you, even if you are otherwise fit. A blog at the LA Times reports a followup from Swedish exercise experts: they propose "establishing a new way of thinking about sedentary behavior. They suggest abolishing 'sedentary behavior' as a synonym for not exercising. Instead, sedentary time should be defined as 'muscular inactivity' to distinguish it from not doing any exercise at all." These experts warn that the excessively sedentary are running serious health risks, irrespective of how much exercise they get when they're not plonked behind a desk or lying on a sofa.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'm writing this while standing up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30829868)

Now disguised fully as some sort of shabbily dressed derelict, I quickly made off with my shopping cart and ran full tilt back to the park. With no hesitation I dug through the trash barrel I'd found earlier, seizing every last can and bottle from the fetid depths of the garbage. I was almost deterred when my hand plunged into a soiled diaper, obviously unimproved from the three days of rain we'd received prior, but I had my eyes on the prize. I rolled my cart down the paths of the park, past the lemmings of our society as they strolled idly past jackpot after jackpot, lacking sense and ambition enough to loot them for their own benefit. Many of them could not contain their envy, looking at me with disgusted jealousy as I filled my cart with money. One phenomenon I cannot explain: a Catholic nun handed me a one dollar bill and told me I could get a free meal at St. Joseph's parish every Sunday afternoon. I took the cash, obviously, and thanked her for the tip on the new scam. I figure they must make you sign up for some shit before you get the free food, and that the nun must get a kickback for every new signup. Slick setup, but I'll just keep the buck, Sister Sucker!

When I thought I'd plucked the final gem from this treasure chest, I slowly paced my way towards the most convenient road out of the park. I passed by a man drinking from a brown paper bag. I wasn't born yesterday, so I knew that he had a bottle in it (and probably not Chocolate Yoohoo if you get my drift). I tried to look very patient and unassuming while I waited for him to finish his bottle and discard it, so that I might add it to my coffers. After ten or so minutes he did something shocking and unexpected: he walked into a nearby Port-A-Potty and took the bottle in with him. Seven minutes later, exactly, he re-emerged without his bottle. The disgusting truth was obvious, he had finished his bottle while on the latrine and tossed the empty down into the hole. I nearly wrote that one off as a loss, but then my inner puppet spoke once again, chiding me for the sheer Hagginsian nature of my hesistation. Suffice to say, I was shoulder deep in shit before I even had time to regret my moment of weakness. Was the resulting bottle of Olde English 800 Malt Liquor worth the effort? You bet your ass, buddy.

Alright, so even the faithful are probably getting impatient by now. I'm sure you want to know what my take was after all that time and effort and both occassions of having a limb thrust into fecal matter. Let's just say that Andrew Jackson and I have a dinner date tonight (though I'll only be needing his vagrant friend Alexander Hamilton once I apply my coupon). On second thought, Kroger's has On-Cor Salisbury Steaks for 2.50, and I have a manufacturer's coupon which I attained by lying to their customer care line. In case you're wondering, saying you found a condom in your chicken parmesan is only worth a dollar off your next purchase.

Let's hear those lefties cry (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30829978)

My excuse (4, Funny)

hedgemage (934558) | more than 4 years ago | (#30829882)

I can't remember things when I'm standing. I think its because I keep all my thoughts in my lap and when I stand up, they fall on the floor and roll under the desk.

Re:My excuse (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30829898)

I think its because I keep all my thoughts in my lap and when I stand up, they fall on the floor and roll under the desk.

That's because you think with your worn out vagina.

mod parent up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830462)

/. mods = little hitlers and murderers

Re:My excuse (1)

laederkeps (976361) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830518)

I can't remember things when I'm standing. I think its because I keep all my thoughts in my lap and when I stand up, they fall on the floor and roll under the desk.

I always wondered what the rounded corners on my lapt^Wnotebook were for!

Synonyms (0, Flamebait)

clemdoc (624639) | more than 4 years ago | (#30829886)

Can somebody please point me to a dictionary where these synonyms are explained? 'sedentary behavior', what a bullshit terminology is that supposed to be? And then, of course, we have to abolish (abolish, right) or change the definitions of these buzzwords so before any discussion might take place, consent about the use of said definitions needs to be reached.

Re:Synonyms (2, Informative)

polar red (215081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30829918)

the article point out that current definitions are inadequate ... so they try to come up with new ones. a language is not static, but dynamic, otherwise we would still speak assyrian or something similar ...

Re:Synonyms (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#30829984)

a language is not static, but dynamic,

And the most dynamic of them all: bullshit.

The problem is not that they have a new word, it's that they have a new word for no reason and nobody knows what it means exactly.

I for one am not convinced (3, Insightful)

linhares (1241614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830070)

so they stamp out an 8-page paper with more authors than pages, in a journal called "Circulation" from the American Heart Association , whose slogan is Learn and Live. (Bias anyone?)

Here is the papirus: http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.894824v1 [ahajournals.org]

I'm not too convinced here. Besides the obvious Duh! factor in TFP, I feel there's much more to the story and until lots and lots of follow-up studies are done I'm not convinced. Hell, these dudes are saying that you can be lean and mean (totally fit) and still have a much higher chance of death if you rest watching the F'n TV. And the numbers are STAGGERING.

I think it was Carl Sagan that used to say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"; correct me if I'm wrong; but one study in a journal with an obvious bias just isn't enough to scare me. Now if you'll excuse me I'll watch that rerun of last tango in paris.

Re:I for one am not convinced (2, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830404)

No, no, think of the greater good. Let the papers slide. Maybe OSHA will read them and require having comfy recliners on every job site as a safety requirement.

Re:Synonyms (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830126)

Which new word do they have? Both sedentary, and behaviour have been words for a long time. Not only that, but they've had meanings that when you associate with each other mean "generally being lazy" or "not moving much". I don't get what you're complaining about at all.

Re:Synonyms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830226)

The Swede's can by dynamic with their own language. We don't need them coming over here and putting their dynamo's everywhere. In American, we say "power plant." Duh.

Re:Synonyms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30829938)

Whats the problem on this 2 words? "Sedentary behavior" Is there another english word which was overloaded 100 of times in its meaning to reflect that?

Re:Synonyms (1)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830476)

Overloading is a good language feature.

Disclaimer: This post may contain overloaded words.

Re:Synonyms (3, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830074)

"Sedantary behaviour", originally a medical term, has found its way into normal British English. Looking at Google Trends [google.co.uk] it's in everyone else's English too.

What we need is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30829888)

...the exercise desk demonstrated by Woody Allen in the movie "Bananas".

Insurance? (5, Insightful)

onlysolution (941392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30829894)

I honestly can't help but wonder if this will eventually be used as an excuse to hike insurance/worker's comp rates for desk jockeys...

Re:Insurance? (2, Informative)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830112)

I have been waiting for insurances to start charging more for people that have poor diet and exercises habits ever since they went after the smokers.

Unfortunetly, I fall into all of the above categories but have recently quit smoking. (I will swear by chantix for any smoker - assuming that smoker can handle the stomach sickness and nightmares that occur while on the medicine. I didn't have the nightmares but I did have more vivid dreams. It defintely made me sick, though.)

Re:Insurance? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830304)

The intense nightmares are what makes quitting smoking worthwhile. I don't crave cigarettes anymore, but damn do I miss my own personal holodeck.

Re:Insurance? (3, Informative)

PaulSipot (1299591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830386)

I tried quitting several times before and I usually experience vivid dreams when using nicotine patches (The strongest 24/7 ones), I love it! It makes me want to sleep all the time, but the effect wares off after a week or two :/.

Better get alot of the slashdotters moving (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30829906)

Maybe slashdot will create a group webcam excercise confrence call, with each person wearing a mask with their Slashdot number on it. That would truly be a sight to behold. Then we can all be healthy enough to reach the next century.

I'll stay in my sofa (5, Funny)

Permutation Citizen (1306083) | more than 4 years ago | (#30829928)

They can run any study they want, people get badly injured doing sports, not sitting on a sofa.

Re:I'll stay in my sofa (1, Insightful)

asquithea (630068) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830008)

This should be modded insightful, not funny. All the injuries I've ever had have come from sports, not idleness or walking for pleasure.

Sitting still too long might not be healthy, but the reality is that your diet will have a much greater impact on your health than exercise ever will.

Re:I'll stay in my sofa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830046)

This so many times.

Good diet will beat any exercise you do.
People get on perfectly fine till they are way up in the 80s-100s without overly-strenuous exercise through their life, simply due to good diet.
Now these days people suck on sugar straws (literally) and god knows what else.

A walk a day will keep the heart attack away.

Re:I'll stay in my sofa (2, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830202)

Only on Slashdot...
Sorry dude, but EPIC FAIL!

How about you stop eating? Most diseases come from bad food (wrong long-term balance, etc).
How about you stop kissing and sex. You could get herpes. Oh, wait, we’re on Slashdot. ;)
You see how this makes no sense.

Think for a second, about, what human bodies are build for.
You know what the number one advantage of humans was, back in the hunter/gatherer times?
That we were able to “out-jog” and other life-form on the planet. We did just follow the animal, until it couldn’t walk any further. Nobody could walk as far as we did. Some native American tribes (in Mexico, I think) still are a testament to that. They walk hundrets of miles in one trip. In crappy shoes or barefoot. (After all, we’re built for it.) No problem.
And they never get sick. They have some of the best healths on the planet.

You should really stop making excuses, and think about, what hundreds of thousands of years of evolution optimized you for. Can’t get any better.

Re:I'll stay in my sofa (1)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830048)

Your subject:

I'll stay in my sofa

In your sofa? Is that an Americanism/Anglicism or do we now have LOLCATs posting on slashdot?

Re:I'll stay in my sofa (2, Informative)

Permutation Citizen (1306083) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830216)

English is not my native language.

In french we say "Assis dans un fauteuil". This means literaly "sat in an armchair". Sorry for this french-ism.

Re:I'll stay in my sofa (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830124)

Please don't mod parent "Funny".

He's actually pointing out a major cause for mankind's current crisis. No matter if it's financial, political or climate trouble, you can always look at it and find one root cause: All these are issues we are biologically ill-equipped to deal with. Long-term problems with no immediate danger. When the human brain evolved, it didn't have spare room for that kind of processing, except in the general "deal with all the other complicated stuff, if you feel like it" area we call reasoning. Our main problem was not being eaten today, finding a mate soon and getting the tribe to that other place by the end of the month. "Next year" was about as far as our ancestors ever needed to plan, so we don't have any brain matter specialized to doing it. "May hurt me in 10 years time" is a waste of energy to think about when your survival until next week is far from certain.

Misinformation && Contradictions (-1, Troll)

foobsr (693224) | more than 4 years ago | (#30829936)

Ant tips the week-old news that sitting down too much is not good for you, even if you are otherwise fit.

Well, firstly, I thought that anyone who (was) is sitting at a desk for hours each day would intuitively know that. So much for the news.

Secondly, if you are sitting for hours at a desk each day, you are not fit.

But I am sure that the vast majority indeed needs expert advice to realize the obvious.

CC.

Re:Misinformation && Contradictions (3, Funny)

BenevolentP (1220914) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830012)

It IS news since the genereal (and imo true) belief is that you can make up for hours behind your desk by exercising when you're not. From the article: "Avoid sitting for prolonged periods and keep in mind to move more, more often." I think Ill increase my smoke break frequency from now on.

Re:Misinformation && Contradictions (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830096)

I think Ill increase my smoke break frequency from now on.

And the cigarettes will surely undo any minor benefits gained from walking outside.

Re:Misinformation && Contradictions (2, Interesting)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830034)

Secondly, if you are sitting for hours at a desk each day, you are not fit.

Why not? I have a desk job, and I sit here for ~7 hours a day, but a few months back (for a completely unrelated issue) I wasted four hours in a hospital waiting for tests and results, before the doctor said "I'm worried about your heart rate, it's unusually low, but we can't find anything wrong with you. Do you do much exercise?" "Yes, I cycle fast for half an hour every morning and evening." "Oh. You've got nothing to worry about then, feel free to leave."

Current advice suggests what I do (cycle to work, sit a lot, cycle home) is sufficient exercise. If the sitting a lot is itself harmful then I'd like to know.

The study says "Climbing stairs rather than using elevators and escalators, 5 minutes of break during sedentary work, or walking to the store rather than taking the car will be as important as exercise.", which is good to know -- I don't own a car and take the stairs whenever practical anyway, so maybe I should take more breaks at work.

Re:Misinformation && Contradictions (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830188)

Why not? Smokers get breaks all the time.

Re:Misinformation && Contradictions (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830244)

Why not? Smokers get breaks all the time.

I tend to read Slashdot instead...

Re:Misinformation && Contradictions (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830230)

You ride a bicycle? That requires sitting on the saddle!

My god, man! Your doctors are clearly wrong, as this stufy proves you're dangerously close to death!

Re:Misinformation && Contradictions (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830362)

Just a comment about the sitting.

I have a sitting job similar to yours (sitting form 9 to 2 and then from 3 to 6).

My job also requires me to fly a bit. Almost every year I make 12 hour flights. Last year I bought one of those "compression socks" at Charles de Gaulle Airport (15 Euro IIRC) before my long flight.

The compression socks did provide a nice relief during the flight, and according to a bit I have been reading they are good for circulation.

After my flight I thought that they may be useful for my everyday office work. I have been using them since the beginning of the year and they seem nice.

Re:Misinformation && Contradictions (2, Insightful)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830036)

Secondly, if you are sitting for hours at a desk each day, you are not fit.

I work as a software consultant and alot of my work is sitting.

Every 2-3 days, however, I swim about 2 km or 1.2 miles to clear my mind, overthink business and personal goals or issues.
I'd like to think I'm somewhat fit, even though I sit for most of the day.

Re:Misinformation && Contradictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830042)

Well, firstly, I thought that anyone who (was) is sitting at a desk for hours each day would intuitively know that. So much for the news.

Science is based on empirical evidence. Anecdotes or "Hey, everyone knows that" may be suggest what should be tested but should not be accepted as fact.

Secondly, if you are sitting for hours at a desk each day, you are not fit.

Well, you could have a massive upper body with a piece of crap lower body if you lift weights or something while sitting.

But I am sure that the vast majority indeed needs expert advice to realize the obvious.

The "Obvious" is debatable. What's obvious to a health care nut or a nutritionist isn't obvious to Joe Schmo. You can argue that hey, everyone should inherently know that red wine is good for you. Except...no it isn't?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/red-wine/HB00089

Neither the American Heart Association nor the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommend that you start drinking alcohol just to prevent heart disease. Alcohol can be addictive and is associated with other health issues.

Re:Misinformation && Contradictions (0, Redundant)

jamesh (87723) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830186)

That bugged me when I first read it too... does it mean that if I sit down for 5 minutes a day then it doesn't matter how much exercise i'm doing for the rest of the 86395 minutes in the day?

I haven't bothered, but I think that once you untangle all the crap from the article and resolve the contradictions the message is basically "get off your bum and go for a walk". I also expect you'd find a reference to chewbacca and wookies too... it just doesn't make sense.

I have the solution (1)

dushkin (965522) | more than 4 years ago | (#30829948)

I have a portable keyboard (Typing of the Dead style) and I type all my emails while running marathons.

Just fyi.

Where's the part we can use? (3, Interesting)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 4 years ago | (#30829992)

"5 minutes of break during sedentary work" is a good idea, but how often do we need 5 min breaks before the ill effects fo being "too sedentary" kick in?

4 hours increases the risk 80% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830028)

My wife knows what a lazy bum I am, and how much I love coffee. She made me promise to fetch coffee more often when I'm working.

It's an australian group who has made these findings, and sitting for 4 hours increases the risk somewhere around 80%. You can observe the effects with lower times as well. I try to get up once every hour for coffee.

As for those claiming you can't possibly be fit if you sit at a desk every day: sure you can, it's a question about what you do with your spare time. But this is besides the point, even if you never do anything healthy while outside of work you should still not sit for 4 hours straight.

Re:4 hours increases the risk 80% (1)

boneglorious (718907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830114)

Well really, how often do people sit for four hours without getting up at all? I'd be willing to bet a dollar that most people get up every hour anyway.

Re:4 hours increases the risk 80% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830144)

At my former workplace, if you got up every hour or so people started to get suspicious that you were slacking off. I can think of a few times that I would have gone 3 or so hours without moving.

Re:4 hours increases the risk 80% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830250)

Last summer I didn't leave my bed except for bathroom breaks for days at a time.

Of course, I'm weird.

Re:Where's the part we can use? (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830100)

I also wonder about the effect of a good ergonomic chair. I got one because I have RSI, but I've become a real believer in them overall. I'm talking things like the Steelcase Leap, the Humanscale Freedom and so on. The reason why I wonder is because one of their major features is that they are not rigid normally, the move around with the user. You lean back, it leans and provides support at whatever angle you stop at, you shift your legs around, the front moves down to accommodate them and so on. Basically they allow and encourage you to change your seating position as much as you like, without thinking about it.

What I'd wonder is it the sitting that is bad, or sitting still? The study seems to imply the problem isn't just lack of exercise. That being the case (though I'll say I have questions about its validity) is any and all sitting the problem, or only when you are frozen to one posture, as many chairs do?

Re:Where's the part we can use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830170)

The article I read a couple of days ago reporting on this said 5 minutes standing up every 45 minutes.

Re:Where's the part we can use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830418)

..how often do we need 5 min breaks...

A) One break for every 42 minutes of reading a Douglas Adams book.
B) The sum of network latency while playing WoW. For example, every 16.5min at 300ms, 50min at 100ms, 8.3hrs at 10ms. Because who wants to stop for a break when your latency is great?
C) At work, whenever the boss isn't looking.

I exercise when sitting (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 4 years ago | (#30829994)

...with my stepper under the desk. Problem solved.

Medical Advice from the Economic Times? (2, Insightful)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830002)

EVERY hour spent sitting idle in front of the television raises the risk of premature death from heart disease by 18%, an
Australian study found.

*facepalm*

Re:Medical Advice from the Economic Times? (2, Funny)

XavidX (1117783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830022)

Im done for. I sat in front of the TV at least 6 hours last week.

18% * 5 = 108%

Re:Medical Advice from the Economic Times? (5, Funny)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830064)

That's quite impressive, it means that theoretically I should die before I finish typing out this respon

Re:Medical Advice from the Economic Times? (1)

linhares (1241614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830118)

That's quite impressive, it means that theoretically I should die before I finish typing out this respon

1. Somebody call 911? 2. Can I get his uid?

Re:Medical Advice from the Economic Times? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830214)

No, that's not what it means. It means that the a priori risk of heart death of n% is now n+n*1.08 given the new information.

It's OK... (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830238)

That only counts if you live in the Southern Hemisphere.
Cause obviously, we are not about 51684%* dead here up in the Northern part of the globe. Yet.

* Assuming that an average slashdotter has sat for at least** 6 hours a day in front of a screen or behind a desk for the last 20 years.
**Yes, yes, I know. 6 hours is way too optimistic for the slashdot crowd. That is why I said "at least".

A bit of disagreement. (2, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830006)

TFA actually does not make conclusions anything like what is written in OP. The differences may seem slight at first glance, but they are actually very major.

Couch Potatoe vs Office Workers (2, Interesting)

XavidX (1117783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830014)

Sitting down on the sofa is different then sitting by a computer. Even the activities are different. I would like to see the study geered towards office workers who sit all day.

I get plenty of exercise... (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830018)

... raging at people, I swear I've got enough typing finger strength to tap so hard on a fretboard as to leave my fingerprints in the wood!

More to the point... (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830020)

TFA is obviously mistaken on at least one point. They say that every hour spent watching TV increases your risk of premature death by heart attack by 18%... which means that if you spend 8 hours watching TV, you will likely have died 1.44 times. I know that they meant "daily" but even so. The numbers do not add up.

Re:More to the point... (1)

mrjb (547783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830060)

Also, they're comparing apples and oranges: "Australians and Britons watch television for an average of three hours a day. In the US, where two-thirds of all adults are overweight or obese, viewing time is as much as eight hours, Dunstan said. "

So what's the maximum Australians and Britons watch per day? What's the average in the US? (I don't buy that 8 hours of TV is the daily average).

Re:More to the point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830248)

Sadly, I don't buy that 8 hours is the US. maximum either.

Re:More to the point... (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830252)

Don't go comparing AU / UK to US TV viewing habits with comparing Apples and Oranges! [improbable.com]

That's like comparing apples and oranges!

Re:More to the point... (5, Informative)

Clarious (1177725) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830078)

No, you are wrong, if the normal chance of dying due to heart attack is 0.0001%, then watching TV 8 hours per day will make it 0.000001*(1+0.18*8)= 0.000244%

Re:More to the point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830204)

Or 1.18^8

Re:More to the point... (1)

wall0159 (881759) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830372)

Err... no. an increase of risk of 100% means you're doubling your chances of premature death, not that you have a 100% chance of dying instantly.

Basic stats, people!

(Having said that, the claim as stated sounds dubious. Perhaps it's been misreported, and the actual claim is "every hour of _daily_ TV watching increases the risk by 18%" -- which is believable)

Re:More to the point... (2, Funny)

Malc (1751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830406)

Is basic maths not your strong point?

Re:More to the point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830490)

I think your are doing your math wrong. If the initial risk is of of 1%, one more hour of TV increases it to 1.18% (1% + 18% of 1%), not to 19%, and so on.

Conclusion? (1)

ardor (673957) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830024)

Ehm, what is the conclusion of this? Abolish sitting altogether? What about office work? Sitting for 8 hours is pretty common, you know..

Re:Conclusion? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830066)

Maybe. Stand at your workstation. Move around a lot. Break up teams spatially, so you have to move around. Might be healthier in the long run.

What about smokers ? (4, Funny)

f0rk (1328921) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830044)

I go and take a smoke every 1-2h, and walk up and down 3 stories of stairs every time. Am i in risk ?
I KNEW there were good sides of smoking !!

Re:What about smokers ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830276)

Am i in risk ?

You're at risk for falling down the stairs.
When I was going to college, I'd walk the length of the building sometimes during the 15min breaks, to get to the designated smoking area, or my car.

I go and take a smoke every 1-2h

I wish somebody explained this to me years ago: There are spitless, smokeless tobacco products that don't taste like rotten shoe. Swedish Snus is steamed, not fermented, and it's cheaper than nicotine gum, or patches. Most gas stations have Camel snus, which is the kind I typically buy. The mellow type tastes like a mix between cinnamon gum and a cigar.

There are probably some draconian policies about no chewing tobacco where you are, but this stuff doesn't require spitting, doesn't smell foul, and using "regular portion" is basically undetectable.

junk summary and blog, maybe study (2, Interesting)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830050)

The blog misquotes the LA Times article (which originally misquoted the study), and the summary parrots the blog.

May be a bit of junk science, too, but it's hard to tell since I can't find the original study.

If the quotes in the corrected LA Times article are accurate, then the researchers are simply full of it. They describe an 46% increased risk of death by all causes, which is patent nonsense. Everyone's risk (unless there's a secret medical facility I can't access) of death from all causes is 100%.

I'm not saying that there definitely is not a correlation, perhaps even a causal relationship, between sitting for too long in front of the tube and some decrease in life expectancy. However, there may be a step function here where at four hours of sitting the body makes metabolic changes that don't happen at 3.5 (or 2.9, or some such).

What about sitting at the symphony, ballet, office, or while reading books (or journals)? Why specifically call out the "telly time"? Even then, is there any difference between consistently watching sports (football vs cricket?), drama, comedy (laughter is good for you, remember), game shows, and soaps? Maybe too much passive watching (of any or all TV programming) simply rots some part of your brain and that signals your body to quit wasting time and space.

What about meal and "euphemism" breaks? How is that figured into the study?

Re:junk summary and blog, maybe study (1)

praksys (246544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830092)

I'm pretty sure the mortality risk is 'per year' rather than 'lifetime'. So, for example, if an average 40 year old has a 1% chance of dying in the next year, and one who watches 8 hours of TV a day has a 1.46% chance of dying, then that would be a 46% increase in risk of death from all causes.

Re:junk summary and blog, maybe study (2, Informative)

linhares (1241614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830138)

May be a bit of junk science, too, but it's hard to tell since I can't find the original study.

Here:http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.894824v1

RLS? (1)

srothroc (733160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830062)

If there's anything to be believed here, I wonder if RLS makes any difference.

Increased risk. (1)

onion2k (203094) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830068)

Getting heart disease is risk, obviously, but it's a relatively small one unless you're very unhealthy or you have a history of it in your family. If you increase said risk by 18% per hour you're not actually much more likely to die. For example, if you're facing a 1% chance of heart disease then an hour of telly every day changes that to a 1.18% risk. That's probably within any margin of error anyway.

18% is the "scary tabloid statistic". The reality is that it's not really a big deal.

nuke this "story" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830076)

who approved this fart?

average vs. maximum (1)

boneglorious (718907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830082)

I notice they give the average television watching time for the British versus "as much as" time for Americans. Biased much?

"Exercise experts"? (3, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830090)

What's that? The bastard offspring of sports "scientists" and holistic medicine "professionals"?

The published and presumably peer reviewed raw data? Yes, OK, let's discuss that. Advice from people who couldn't get jobs teaching high school gym, and instead have to write about what they would teach, if they could teach? Not so much.

Typing problem (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830098)

The problem is if you stand up, it's harder to type anything in reply to a Slashdot posting.

Scare tactics... (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830120)

... what about the disabled in wheelchairs or those that are completely bedridden? Seriously we've had these people around for years and many of them seem just fine. I am a bit skeptical IMHO, I'd like to see a study done on people that are disabled and compare them against those that are not.

Chicken&Egg issue? (1)

Fotograf (1515543) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830272)

yea but they are not really healthy, are they?

Re:Scare tactics... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830348)

Does it really come as a surprise to you that bedridden people have increased health risks?

We're not there yet (1)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830132)

At the moment, a lot of people are nothing more than doing glorified data entry, and making the occasional judgement call. You really enjoy this when you go to your bank, or dentist, or whatever. You go and sit at their desk, they ask your name and start to enter your visit into the PC, while you wait. Then you state your business, which they again enter while you wait some more. Then they'll give a solution, or send you to someone else, or something, and ask you to wait while they again enter it into the PC.

This whole business could be done by computer, just listening in to the conversation and keeping a record of what's going on. But the technology isn't there, yet.

Simple solution: (1)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830142)

Make it a point to get up from your desk multiple times during your workday, even if it's only to walk back and fourth across the room a few times.

I keep my smoking co-workers company outside every now and then, just for the get-up-and-get-the-blood-flowing -factor. I'm betting any second hand smoke I inhale will be less of a risk than the benefits of moving about a bit. (Not that I ever would enter a smoking room, but fortunately there are none at our office.)

Besides, it's a proven fact that coders need breaks to be productive. It's a net gain for management too! ;)

One reason why not moving is making you sick: (5, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830156)

One thing really got stuck in my mind:

The circulatory system got a heart to pump around the blood.
But the lymphatic system, hasn’t got a heart. Instead, it relies on the movements of your muscles, to get the immune cells around the body.

Which makes it pretty clear, that not moving is not very healthy for you.

I also found, that there are two types of tiredness. The brain one, and the body one.
Brain-wise I can be completely drained, while still having too much energy in my body, to be able to sleep well.
Strangely, the opposite is not analogue. Instead, I found that my brain is much fitter in the morning, after being tired, body-wise, the evening before.

I all in all, making sport, made me come up with better ideas, being able to wrap my head around bigger things, etc. Because I slept better. What really hits it for me, is swimming. You get reeally chilly after it. And sleep like a baby. And in the summer, if nothing else, at least you see some hot girls in bikinis. ;)

We geeks have a hard time with sports. But I got a little mind-twist for you: How about you see your body as this extremely advanced machine that it is. And you want to tune it, hack it, and keep it running nicely, just like do with your (really much much more primitive computer). Use the same motivation and ways to overcome your previous associations. Remember: You can change your views, whenever you like. Do it for the fun. You don’t have to. But there is this cool thing that you wanna try... ;)

I should sell stickers, saying “My other computer... is my body!”. ;)

Re:One reason why not moving is making you sick: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830326)

Can't, we just patented it. Thanks for the idea though... we were fresh out.

-IBM

Re:One reason why not moving is making you sick: (1)

indiechild (541156) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830466)

Nice post, you've provided me with inspiration!

Re:One reason why not moving is making you sick: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830508)

Everyone should be required to read the Hacker's Diet.

Night (1)

Tachys (445363) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830184)

Oh I'm awful about this

I am "excessively sedentary" for 8 hours every night

But (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830218)

Standing up too long is also bad for you - especialy for your feet.
But what is even worse for you is being unemployed (so you don't have to sit at a desk or work in a factory type job all day (or other shift)) since you then can't afford health insurance etc.

It is the statistics (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830256)

Most causes for increased mortality come from statistical studies. Ergo, it is the statistics that are the main cause, not the thing they make statistics of. If those pesky researchers would just stop making so many statistics, we all would live longer and happier!

maintain the course... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830360)

...until nanotechnology creates an automatic lymphatic pump -- please!

In other news, traveling uses gas even if you walk (1)

WSOGMM (1460481) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830380)

Did they even read the articles? All of the data there is referencing time spent watching TV, not just 'sitting'. TV watching comes with a different lifestyle than just sitting. The title is misleading.

Statistical Peril (1)

cherokee158 (701472) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830452)

OK, I found this article, which had actual numbers:

http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docID=634816 [healthfinder.gov]

I was able to do the math and figure out what an 18% increase in your chance of dying per hour of TV viewing really meant: The number of people who died during the course of the study was about 3 percent of the participants over a six year period. That means that every hour of TV viewing actually increased their chance of dying by about half a percent in any given year. So if you watch TV eight hours a day, your chances of dying in any given year go up about 4 percent.

Interestingly, more people died of cancer in the study than heart disease.

I know what sedentary time is!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30830516)

Sedentary time??!? I know that!!! It's when I get high as hell from smoking weed!!!..It's sedentary time!!!

Anyone else think this?

Secret to life (2, Insightful)

Jesus IS the Devil (317662) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830520)

Alright, here's a little secret for all of you:

Everyone dies, once.

I rather live enjoying my time on my seat and sofa than force myself to write emails standing up.

Too much is bad for you (1)

professorguy (1108737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30830524)

I love stories that tell you that "too much" is bad for you. Too much sitting? Bad for you!

Maybe it's because THE DEFINITION OF "TOO MUCH" IS "THE AMOUNT THAT'S BAD FOR YOU."

Fer chrissakes, "too much" water is bad for you, because you've only had "too much" once you've drowned.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?