Less time sitting 'extends life'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18767278

by equilibrium • 14 years ago

48 25 14 years ago

bbc.co.uk

tluyben27• 14 years ago

Why are the targets unfeasible?

spectrum• 14 years ago

Because in our society most of the people sit when they commute, sit when they work and sit when they eat and sit when they relax.

tluyben27• 14 years ago

Yes, but isn't that easy to change? I work behind I computer 10 hours/day, 7 days/week but sit less than 3 of those. I changed that overnight and advice my employees to do the same thing (most do). Why cannot everyone do that? What's the 'unfeasible' about it? Only that people are lazy, don't want it or is there another reason?

krollew• 14 years ago

"Limiting the time we spend sitting to just three hours a day could add an extra two years to our life expectancy, scientists calculate." -- I guess it's poor article. I think it depends on how much I sit per day, isn't it?

On the other hand a agree that people sit too much - they need more doing sports, walking, etc. Together with good diet it makes life not only longer, but happier too.

killyourheros• 14 years ago

There are a lot of people who do more sitting, they call it relaxing, than 3 hours a day and manage to live very long lives. Physical activity is always good but sitting down is not unhealthy.

tluyben27• 14 years ago

Yes? There are plenty (I know at least 7 in my family) people who smoke every day for 80+ years and live without disease before dying their sleep. There are a lot of people who do a lot of sitting and manage to live very short lives.

There might or might not be a health issue with sitting down; for me my personal experience is compelling; I feel YEARS younger since I don't sit more than a few hours a day, relaxing or otherwise. This next to other physical activity. It makes sense to me as well (we didn't used to sit a lot before 1900, so evolution didn't equip our bodies to do so for 8+ hours/day), but that's not really proof/evidence of anything per se, just as 'a lot of people who sit a lot live long' and 'a lot of people who sit a lot die young' are not ;)

I think stress levels are involved too ; sitting cramped / stressed is not very good for you I believe while that is the reality for many 'sitting professionals' ; walking helps reduce stress often so that is a part as well I believe.

FrojoS3• 14 years ago

Interesting. Thanks for sharing your personal observation. Do you have a standing desk or a new job? For how many years do you sit less now?

obtu• 14 years ago

The BBC article touches on this, but the study does not support this conclusion (or any conclusion that could drive public health policy, really). It is lacking any accounting for confounding factors, like physical exercise, diet, health, or income.

pessimizer2• 14 years ago

"It is not clear how many of these people were less healthy to begin with and who, therefore, might spend more time sitting down as a result."

Next in mass market health news: Eating at McDonalds makes you poorer, and playing basketball makes you taller.

rlpb• 14 years ago

"This research only suggests a causal association..."

This wipes out the assumptions that most people seem to be making.

People who are active sit down less. People who are active have a longer life expectancy. So be active. QED.

Nothing about this says that if you change your behaviour by sitting down less, you will live longer. Even TFA acknowledges this.

Conclusion: this article tells us nothing new, and nothing that we wouldn't have assumed already.

lusr• 14 years ago

Agreed; the title of this post is horribly inaccurate and the article is fluff that has been repeated over and over every year in every magazine and newspaper. I don't understand why this is receiving any attention at all; it seems most of the comments here are purely anecdotal data.

pessimizer2• 14 years ago

Why waste time doing a study with an unpredictable result? If you don't know the answer ahead of time, you may not be able to find a soundbite worthy correlation even after fishing with every statistical trick you know, and that = time and effort put in without adding any points to your score (or impact level or whatever.)

Oh, wait. Science is why. That's an old school attitude, don't you think? My study about how a college education may lighten your skin is hotly anticipated. I wonder how it'll turn out?

hopeless2• 14 years ago

There seems to be a growing backlash against sitting and I for one am not going to stand for it!

Actually, just kidding but couldn't resist. I'm leaving my job (in part) because I can feel the negative effects of sitting for 8hrs a day + ~1.5hrs in the car. At the end of the day I feel stiff, tired, and, not breathless, but definitely reduced lung capacity. I've had a standing desk at home for the past 2 years and I see no reason why I should tolerate worse conditions at work than I have at home.

As I mentioned in a comment below, I think standing desks will be the next must-have perk that great companies offer. It will certainly be on my must-have list if I ever return to full-time employment.

Edited to add >> even if you exercise, that may not be enough the negate the effects of sitting: http://mashable.com/2012/04/23/more-you-sit-sooner-die-video... and...

"Sitting, it would seem, is an independent pathology. Being sedentary for nine hours a day at the office is bad for your health whether you go home and watch television afterward or hit the gym. It is bad whether you are morbidly obese or marathon-runner thin." -- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17sitting-t.h...

reasonattlm• 14 years ago

Some commentaries on this sort of research:

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 to wonder what the mechanism is here, however - my suspicion is that it actually does all come back down to the level of physical activity in the end. In these massive studies the level of exercise and activity is reported by the participants. A person who stands and works is going to be somewhat more active than a person who sits and works, even though that time may not be categorized as physical activity, or reported differently.

Exercise is much like calorie restriction - the effects are so large in comparison to other factors we have easy access to that they are likely to creep into any study.

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/06/another-study-sug...

At some point in the future we won't really have to worry too much about things like this, as medical science will progress to the point at which maintenance of long-term health regardless of lifestyle becomes as much a non-issue as protection from the infectious diseases that plagued our ancestors. But we have a way to go towards that goal, and in the meanwhile it doesn't seem wise to sit back and assume that biotechnology will rescue you from casual negligence. Maybe you'll get lucky, but for those of us in the middle stages of life it looks uncertain indeed. The coming decades are on the cusp between the era of aging as a fact of life and aging as a treatable and reversible medical condition - a lot of deaths will fall on the wrong side of that line, so why not try to shift the odds on whether yours is one of them? Every year gained is big deal in this sort of situation.

Less time sitting 'extends life'

Related Stories