Live data from Hacker News

Confirmed: He Who Sits the Most Dies the Soonest

m.theatlantic.com

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: Confirmed: He Who Sits the Most Dies the Soonest

#41
post #17
post #6

This story keeps popping up on HN and elsewhere. And the common solution I've read is "Please, just get a standup desk!" as if standing up and not moving is healthier than sitting and not moving. I've seen no study that supports that conclusion. I think the message should be: moving is healthier than not moving, which is hardly news.

Standing keeps postural musculature (those you use to keep balance upright) active. So even standing still is way more activity than simply sitting where postural muscles just do nothing. I wonder whether "active sitting" [e.g., sitting on a ball, or just sitting correctly (upright, instead of leaning on the back of the chair -- imagine sitting upright on a chair without the back)] has the same negative effect.

I sit on a yoga ball when I'm at the computer. It's a dramatic improvement over sitting on a stationary object or using a standing desk. The constant need to balance has strengthened my core and the freedom to make the tiniest adjustment means I'm always comfortable and less likely to experience fatigue. Sitting in any kind of chair feels weird now. It's such a different experience, I can't believe it would have a similar negative effect. I wish I had started years earlier, but like any activity, it's important to take regular breaks and include exercise in your lifestyle.

Re: Confirmed: He Who Sits the Most Dies the Soonest

#42
post #6

This story keeps popping up on HN and elsewhere. And the common solution I've read is "Please, just get a standup desk!" as if standing up and not moving is healthier than sitting and not moving. I've seen no study that supports that conclusion. I think the message should be: moving is healthier than not moving, which is hardly news.

http://health.yahoo.net/experts/menshealth/most-dangerous-th... "British researchers found that (sitting) bus drivers were twice as likely to die of heart attacks as (standing) trolley operators." The idea is that bus drivers and trolley operators are similar in all the other important respects (e.g. socio-economic backgrounds).

British bus drivers are often overweight.

Re: Confirmed: He Who Sits the Most Dies the Soonest

#43
post #13

This reminds me of another correlational study I was tickled pink to read, and I just had to quote it in one of my essays http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine#fn7 : > "…Based on these figures, and expected deaths from all causes, the authors calculated that an individual who spends a lifetime average of six hours a day watching TV can expect to live just under five fewer years than someone who does not watch TV. These figur…

Even if you assume those correlations are 100% accurate, you still have to remember that it's all averages. If I could know that by smoking I'd die five years earlier than otherwise, I'd absolutely keep doing it for the rest of my life. But the chances of cigarettes causing my death exactly five years before I would otherwise have died are very slim, who knows they might give me cancer when I'm 40. Or 90.

I know the above is pretty much common sense, but it just always annoys me whenever the topic of "dying an average of X years sooner" comes up.

Re: Confirmed: He Who Sits the Most Dies the Soonest

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a "40% higher risk", not a 40% risk.

So, how high is the risk if out of 1000 people, nobody died due to sitting?

As a smoker, looking at myself shows that cigarettes cause 0% chance of death in a sample of 1 - you wouldn't neccesarily expect your 1000 person sample to show results as accurate as a much bigger sample size (222,497).

But more importantly - this research was done on people over the age of 45, your 1000 people were aged 5-24. Using your age range I imagine we could prove that smoking 60 a day and eating McDonalds for every meal isn't particularly dangerous.

Re: Confirmed: He Who Sits the Most Dies the Soonest

#46

This was a statistical work from data on 220,000 people in a large Australian longitudinal study, and it claims to show that sitting time correlates with increased mortality independently of level of physical activity. Some thoughts: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/04/sitting-time-corr... This is not the first study to propose this correlation, of course. There are a range of others from past years. One has t…

I'm guessing the reporting on things other than just standing varies widely too. Personal anecdote from a person who spends a lot more of the day standing than most people I know: What counts in my brain as simply "returning books to the library" would count as exercise - specifically, "hour of brisk walking" for most people I know. And for many of them it would count as unusually strenuous exercise, whereas for me it's just everyday transportation and doesn't really count as exercise at all. Even if were to be specifically asked to keep track of it, I suspect I'd still end up underreporting it. I was recently surprised to discover my brother lives more than a mile away from me. I make that walk all the time, and had thought it was about half as much.

It makes me worry that participant self-reporting cannot seriously be considered a reasonable way to measure levels of physical activity.

At least, not without research specifically designed to validate it for that purpose. Which might exist. I really haven't looked into it. If it does, please ignore all previous inane babble.

Post reply on HN