Don't Blame Sitting — Yet — for Shorter Lives of the Sedentary • Hacker News Board

Re: Don't Blame Sitting — Yet — for Shorter Lives of the Sedentary

#31

Post by aptwebapps » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 4:22 AM UTC

algorias wrote: post #30

kkowalczyk wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All it means that at some point we'll evolve to be really good at sitting. I'm doing my share to make that happen.

Sure, that will happen at some point. Don't hold your breath though; evolution works over extremely long timescales (hundreds if not thousands of generations)

The evolutionary pressure of people dying at 65 instead of 66 (completely made up numbers) is pretty small, especially in a modern society where their dependents will not usually starve as a result.

Re: Don't Blame Sitting — Yet — for Shorter Lives of the Sedentary

#32

Post by angelbob » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 4:39 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #19

aimatt wrote: post #7

I made my own standing desk and I've been using it for a year now. I won't go back because just by doing that, I have more energy through the day. Who cares what the flip-flopping WSJ keeps saying.

You are very possibly harming yourself far more with a standing desk than you would by sitting. Sitting is correlated with fat metabolism issues, but standing for periods of just 10-15 minutes is correlated with vascular disease; standing was shown in studies to correlate with increased stress hormones and increased blood density. You are better off setting a timer and, every 20-30 minutes or so, getting up and movin…

but standing for periods of just 10-15 minutes is correlated with vascular disease;

Just 10-15 minutes? Where did they find subjects for a research study that didn't stand for at least 10-15 minute spans during the day?

Re: Don't Blame Sitting — Yet — for Shorter Lives of the Sedentary

#33

Post by tomjen3 » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 5:06 AM UTC

rwhitman wrote: post #24

Isn't it obvious that sitting for prolonged periods of time is completely unnatural? We have evolved to run, jump, climb, not spend 8 hrs a day compressing our spines - it is only in the last 100 or so years that sedentary occupations have become the norm

Safe drinking water is completely unnatural too.

Do you suggest that is bad?

Re: Don't Blame Sitting — Yet — for Shorter Lives of the Sedentary

#34

Post by qu4z-2 » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 6:12 AM UTC

vwoolf wrote: post #22

tptacek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are very possibly harming yourself far more with a standing desk than you would by sitting. Sitting is correlated with fat metabolism issues, but standing for periods of just 10-15 minutes is correlated with vascular disease; standing was shown in studies to correlate with increased stress hormones and increased blood density. You are better off setting a timer and, every 20-30 minutes or so, getting up and movin…

Sitting is correlated with fat metabolism issues, but standing for periods of just 10-15 minutes is correlated with vascular disease; standing was shown in studies to correlate with increased stress hormones and increased blood density. [Citation needed] This isn't meant as a threat, either: I'd be quite interested in a comprehensive literature review of this stuff. It reminds me a bit of the brouhaha around barefoot…

I always thought the main argument for barefoot running was that it makes heel strikes and other things noticeably unpleasant, thus encouraging proper technique (forefoot striking).

Source: I don't run, but I read an article once.

Re: Don't Blame Sitting — Yet — for Shorter Lives of the Sedentary

#35

Post by jacques_chester » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 9:23 AM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #29

jsz0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why people are skeptical of science. They view it almost exclusively through the mass media filter. When you see massively conflicting stories on a monthly basis it's easy to conclude scientists are just 'making it up as they go' and believe what you want to believe.

The problem is there are plenty of scientists who are willing to lend their credibility to these sensationalist stories. Every story has an interview with some expert from some university backing up the premise, because scientists are people too and some of them want their 15 minutes of fame like the rest of us.

I take it you've never spoken to a journalist.

Their job is not to present the findings in a balanced way. It is to present sharp, punchy, telegraphic prose that grabs a reader's interest and holds it long enough to justify the cost of the adjacent advertising.

Oh! And they need it done by 4pm sharp.

Conversations can go along these lines:

Journo: "What does the study say, Doctor Bloggs? Will people who sit more die sooner?"

Dr Bloggs, PhD: "Well it's too early to say that for sure. It's only a preliminary result. There's no full randomised trial, it's a meta-study based on a few dozen other studies. "

Journo: "But what was the conclusion? Does sitting shorten life?"

Dr Bloggs, PhD: "Well when the researchers controlled for known risk factors like age, heredity and so forth they found a correlation between sedentary time and lifespan. But it's only an early result, much more work has to be done."

Journo: "What does that mean in lay terms?"

Dr Bloggs, PhD: "It means that based on this study, people who sit for longer had a shorter life expectancy."

Journo: "Would you say that means that they died sooner than they otherwise would have?"

Dr Bloggs, PhD: "Sure, that's one way to put it."

Next day:

SITTING IS KILLING YOU SAYS DOC

Prominent local medical scientist Dr Blogg said yesterday that people who sit too much "die sooner".

"People who sit [have] a shorter life expectancy", he said.

His comments come after the publication of a report...

At no point has the journalist strictly lied about what Dr Bloggs said. He just left out that tedious fluffy sandbagging scientists always insist on and cut to the heart of the matter. The journalist here can source every word in the report.

Everything you ever say to a journalist can and will be published.

They are not your friends. They are not normal people who keep normal confidences. They do not observe social niceties or politeness in conveying what you said.

They will print only what makes for an interesting story. And that will only rarely be what you, the source, had in mind when you spoke to them.

Re: Don't Blame Sitting — Yet — for Shorter Lives of the Sedentary

#36

Post by dllthomas » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 4:14 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #18

graeme wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're ignoring the possibility that sitting is bad, but the negative impact is outweighed by the other advantages accompanied by education. (Not saying that's the true explanation)

"You're ignoring the possibility that sitting is bad, but the negative impact is outweighed by the other advantages accompanied by education." I mean that's basically what I believe to be the case. Even if sitting is bad for you, which I'm not convinced of but which wouldn't especially surprise me, I'm sure that for many people the good effects of sitting can outweigh the bad, not just in school but all throughout li…

Those aren't "good effects of sitting", they are good effects of other things which typically involve sitting. The place most people I've talked to went, when seeing the original article, was talking about standing desks. If it is in fact the sitting-as-opposed-to-standing that is having an impact, that would be a good way of having the benefits of a desk job without the sitting. I don't think anyone read it and said, "Oh, I'd better quit my cushy desk job and become a coal miner."