Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Active' sitting is better for brain health: review of studies

sciencealert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 62 posts

Re: 'Active' sitting is better for brain health: review of studies

#41

Post by mna_ »

iammjm wrote: post #21
eatsyourtacos wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably more "active" sitting. If you are a gamer (especially computer gamer), you are generally not just sitting back "relaxing". Your body is more engaged and you are constantly moving your body in some way. Sitting and watching tv you can literally be completely still for long periods of time.

Consider StarCraft: Brood War, a legendary real-time strategy game. To be played well, it requires between 200-400 actions per minute (APM), with some players going even beyond 500 APM. Some games last for more than an hour. Players use both the mouse and the keyboard. There's always more to do than you can realistically do. You are always putting out fires, managing your economy, producing units, securing income, ca…

Let's be honest, most of those actions are useless keybashing and clicking. It's easy to get a high APM.

Re: 'Active' sitting is better for brain health: review of studies

#42

Post by moravak1984 »

ofalkaed wrote: post #13
goda90 wrote: post #9

"Passively watching TV" feels like a common target for brain health/strength/etc discussions. I'm curious if there's been any studies into the differences that engagement with television programs can have on the brain. There's been a whole breadth of television programming over the decades. I think it would be wrong to treat it all as equal in regards to how it impacts your brain.

It comes down to your level of engagement, if you are interested in and knowledgeable about any of the arts which comprise TV/Film (acting, directing, set dressing, etc) you are very likely to more actively engage with TV than the average person does with literature.

I was an avid reader, then I had to stop due to eye problems and because I did not want "staring at a thing" to be my hobby when it was also my day job as a data scientist.

While I still spend a lot of my working life staring at a screen, taking acting and filmmaking as a hobby has enabled me to enjoy many other aspects. Even if the plot/character is lousy (e.g. "Heated rivalry") I enjoy looking at the director's choices and analyzing them. My wife jumped ship and every time we watch something we have a discussion about it, which is something I had never done with books.

It truly is the level of engagement, not the medium.

Re: 'Active' sitting is better for brain health: review of studies

#43

Post by ramon156 »

pedalpete wrote: post #20

That this is the state of "science" is very disappointing, and whenever I see the domain sciencealert, am pretty much trained that it is going to be nonsense. Sadly, other science publications seem to be following a not dissimilar trend.

the journal that's linked seems "okay"... definitely nothing groundbreaking but any research on Alzheimer is better than no research

Re: 'Active' sitting is better for brain health: review of studies

#44

Post by DrewADesign »

mna_ wrote: post #41
iammjm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider StarCraft: Brood War, a legendary real-time strategy game. To be played well, it requires between 200-400 actions per minute (APM), with some players going even beyond 500 APM. Some games last for more than an hour. Players use both the mouse and the keyboard. There's always more to do than you can realistically do. You are always putting out fires, managing your economy, producing units, securing income, ca…

Let's be honest, most of those actions are useless keybashing and clicking. It's easy to get a high APM.

In Smash? Sure. In StarCraft? I’ve never measured it, but I wouldn’t say ‘most’ by any stretch.

Re: 'Active' sitting is better for brain health: review of studies

#45

Post by valenceelectron »

mna_ wrote: post #41
iammjm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider StarCraft: Brood War, a legendary real-time strategy game. To be played well, it requires between 200-400 actions per minute (APM), with some players going even beyond 500 APM. Some games last for more than an hour. Players use both the mouse and the keyboard. There's always more to do than you can realistically do. You are always putting out fires, managing your economy, producing units, securing income, ca…

Let's be honest, most of those actions are useless keybashing and clicking. It's easy to get a high APM.

This is certainly true in the beginning of a game. Players claim to do this to warm up. However, in a busy confrontation there is no reason to spam any actions that are not directly contributing towards your endeavor. If you spam useless actions during a fight, your opponent who does not will best you.

Re: 'Active' sitting is better for brain health: review of studies

#47

Post by mathgeek »

helph67 wrote: post #8
nbosse wrote: post #2

I'm confused by this... It seems to me like the relevant part is "playing computer games is good" not "the type of sitting you do matters". Playing computer games while standing might be even better

"A professor at the Institute for Work and Health found that people who stand throughout the day at their jobs have a 2.2 times higher risk of developing heart disease than those people who sit during the day." https://www.ergolink.com.au/blog/standing-vs-sitting-at-a-de...

> Sitting and standing for long periods have their pros and cons so which one should you choose?

False dichotomy. Choose moderation if and when you can, like most things in life.

Re: 'Active' sitting is better for brain health: review of studies

#48

Post by PlatoIsADisease »

As soon as my kid was able to play video games, we basically banned him from watching tv.

His only tv was phonics and numbers, which helped significantly because when he started playing minecraft on creative, he had to sound out the items he wanted to search for.

I didn't have any science, it was intuition.

I suppose next step is to figure out which video games are best. We basically don't let them play Idle games, but I'm starting to think platformers might need to be banned too.

Re: 'Active' sitting is better for brain health: review of studies

#49

Post by huhkerrf »

collinmcnulty wrote: post #26
dexwiz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even think it's the same across viewers. When my partner and I watch some shows, we make prediction for the plot and evaluations of characters. We even have a bet book where we record and score predictions for some shows. It's makes watching much more engaging, especially if the creators hide details and foreshadowing in the background. But you don't even need high quality content to do this, just tighten the…

My wife and I do this for Survivor and The Amazing Race. We’re very engaged, debating strategy, making predictions. And then we watched with other people and they just … watched.

I've seen people be smug that they read books and don't watch TV before, but this is the first time I've seen someone be smug that they watch reality TV better than someone else.

Re: 'Active' sitting is better for brain health: review of studies

#50

Post by GoToRO »

dexwiz wrote: post #10
goda90 wrote: post #9

"Passively watching TV" feels like a common target for brain health/strength/etc discussions. I'm curious if there's been any studies into the differences that engagement with television programs can have on the brain. There's been a whole breadth of television programming over the decades. I think it would be wrong to treat it all as equal in regards to how it impacts your brain.

I don't even think it's the same across viewers. When my partner and I watch some shows, we make prediction for the plot and evaluations of characters. We even have a bet book where we record and score predictions for some shows. It's makes watching much more engaging, especially if the creators hide details and foreshadowing in the background. But you don't even need high quality content to do this, just tighten the…

Gambling for movies?
Post reply on HN