This is a warning sign: "Men who spent more than 23 hours a week watching TV and sitting in their cars (as passengers or as drivers) had a 64 percent greater chance of dying from heart disease than those who sat for 11 hours a week or less."
23 hours per week vs 11 hours per week? I call this a warning sign because it screams of post-hoc analysis. Unless they then used these as pre-specified cutoffs for later studies, I would be very cautious not to overinterpret.
It's always wise to suspect that sort of data-mining, but if (as I think but am not sure) your point is that they look like arbitrary numbers, suggesting that they were chosen by the researchers to give a good-sounding result -- well, let's express them differently: "24 hours or more" versus "less than 12 hours". It sounds a lot more canonical that way :-).
... Except that, looking at the abstract (there's a link in the NYT article), I find this: "Men who reported >10 h/wk riding in a car or >23 h/wk of combined sedentary behavior had 82% and 64% greater risk of dying from CVD than those who reported <4 or <11 h/wk, respectively." [I've changed one unhelpful bit of notation.] So, looks like data mining after all.
On the other other hand, as well as those (possibly cherry-picked) thresholds there are statements like "After age adjustment, time riding in a car and combined time spent in these two sedentary behaviors were positively (P(trend) < 0.001) associated with CVD death." which suggests something less ad hoc.
Participants were 7744 men (20-89 yr) initially free of CVD who returned a mail-back survey during 1982. Time spent watching TV and time spent riding in a car were reported. Mortality data were ascertained through the National Death Index until December 31, 2003.
They noted that they adjusted for age. I presume other factors like the economic status correlate also with the time they watched tv. Don't know if they've adjusted for that as well.
23 hours per week vs 11 hours per week? I call this a warning sign because it screams of post-hoc analysis. Unless they then used these as pre-specified cutoffs for later studies, I would be very cautious not to overinterpret.
What exactly are you saying? I honestly can't decipher the meaning of your words.
It'd be interesting to see how much gym workout is equivalent in benefits to the frequent light-intensity activities recommended in the article.
There are some pretty simple ways to add extra light physical activity to your daily routine. I tend to drink a lot of water, which means I need to go fill my bottle a few times a day and walk to the washroom more often than I would otherwise.
There was also a TED talk about communities in Italy and Japan with long lifespans and lifestyles that involved lots of minor activities
Summary: To find the path to long life and health, Dan Buettner and team study the world's "Blue Zones," communities whose elders live with vim and vigor to record-setting age. At TEDxTC, he shares the 9 common diet and lifestyle habits that keep them spry past age 100.
Short work outs will produce the same result if they are performed within same time span day after day. You can mix the hours up for each work out but let's be honest... that would be too much of a hassle.
I don't think article is very scientific; 'hitting the gym' can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. They can sit in the gym, do cardio, do weights, do stretches, etc. Too many variables. Obviously if subject goes to the gym and does 20 curls before calling it quits there will be absolutely no benefit.
If you hit the gym during the lunch break or before/after work and throw cardio/stretching in (not just weights) you will be fine. Or simply do some good stretching here and there; problem solved.
There is one really large potential problem with this study: it is just a big survey. Often there is a discrepancy between what people say and what people actually do. What if many of the individuals polled simply lied, told half truths, or were mistaken about their times? It's already been proven that men lie about their incomes, why doesn't this extend to an active lifestyle as well?
For me to really take this seriously, these people need to be observed in some non-intrusive way. We do have the technology now, or so I think.
While I'm not an expert on these type of studies, I am married to one. I often see these types of criticisms bantered about, but I'm fairly certain that these researchers are MUCH more sophisticated in their controls than we give them credit for.
There is an entire body of research dedicated to ascertaining the quality and reliability of surveys, how surveys are delivered, and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. In doing these studies those methodologies are generally well understood (and clearly cited) as part of the paper itself.
While I know those of us who where educated in the 'hard' sciences (I'm a physicist by training) find it hard to buy into these... I've been quite impressed by how rigorous they really are.
I haven't read this particular study, so I may be way off base... but the fact that the fundamentals of the study involved a survey do not make it bad or invalid science (as long as the study was conducted properly that is).
I've been thinking I'd like to get a standing workstation as it might encourage me to move around more, and I believe that even just to be standing most of the time is supposed to impact positively on heart health. Something like this would be awesome (though I imagine, pricey): http://www.amesystem.com.au/activdesk/
I love mine. I stacked two IKEA tables on top of each other. It turned out to be perfect height for me. YMMV.
I love love love standing while working on the computer. There was a transition period of 2 weeks for me of leg and foot soreness. Best of all, my pre-existing knee pain went away!!
I don't have a pic yet. But I will post it to my software blog sooner than later: http://bp321.com/code/
The IKEA Fredrik desk is adjustable and can be made into a great stand-up desk, claim many blogs that I researched when I first became interested in stand-up desks. Currently as I recently moved to a spacious apartment my computer is stacked on boxes. The reason I tried a stand-up desk was to get that intense focus, as I am now not easily distracted from a task when I work.
Why do these studies always avoid to talk about the intensity of the excercise for each subject. There's plenty of people at my gym that I've never seen sweating.
I wonder if this is because sitting and watching TV tends to correlate with poor diet (lots of snacking on unhealthy things while on the couch), whereas it's quite difficult to eat bad stuff while moving around all the time.
When I was a kid I used to skateboard around town about 8 hours a day, moving around all the time. I ate nothing but junk food during while doing this. What was I going to do, steam some brussell sprouts in the parking lot? It's more like existing in America tends to correlate with poor diet.
I work at Ergotron, and we are building solutions to this very problem, affordable sit/stand workstations. There are numerous studies that appear to indicate our bodies are not built to sit for prolonged periods of time. Sitting may in fact be killing us early. Check out http://juststand.org
I believe so. For me, I'm always squashing stress balls (not because I'm stressed), twirling pens around my fingers, or playing with rubber bands (in addition to bouncing legs).
I've always been on the thin side which people put down to high metabolism, but I suspect a lot of it is also to the fact I am in fact almost always in motion (even if only a small part of me).
It's satisfying to know that I've avoided wasting my time at the gym.
Instead, I go through life accepting the fact that I'll be dead by 80. I find it both motivating and relaxing. Instead of literally wasting 20% of my time at the gym, I can instead waste it in much more interesting ways: on games, programming, TV shows. I believe this will result in an overall healthier mental lifestyle. And since my body maintains a constant weight of ~215 pounds, and since I have no use for physical stamina or strong muscles, I literally have no use for the gym.
A Knee* Chair is another cool way to sit and always be "in movement". Due to their design, you're forced to reposition yourself every few minutes or so.
*Technically you don't sit on your knees. You sit on your bottom (bearing most of the weight), and use your shins for balance.
What is it about improving health that brings out the most ridiculous concepts in fitness tool designs? This was advertised next to the article: http://i.imgur.com/PXsxO.png
What makes people want to spend money on tools like this when the greatest fitness tool is the human body itself?
I'm fairly sure that 90% of those wacky "exercise" ideas - like the hip-swivel chair - were created on a whim, or as a bet between two businessmen.
"Alright, we each have a month to come up with, manufacture, and advertise the most retarded exercise tool we can come up with. After six months of sales, we'll determine the winner by units shipped. Loser has to do a line of blow off the winner's genitals."
Just another way to exploit the human weakness for easy answers. If you're fat, losing weight and getting in shape is going to take work. Either discipline to eat less, or to do real exercise (3 minutes a day using some gadget is going to do NOTHING), most likely both. TINSTAAFL.
Huh, maybe I should just go into the tour guide business. I'd get lots of walking around here, probably eat better, and spend less time dicking around with bullshit code. I wonder what sort of unpleasant grief annoying tourists might cause... :-)
I have no idea, but I imagine it this way. Your users are incentivised to talk to you on a regular basis. You are never going to see a tourist again. If you hate users, you will LOATHE tourists.
The study mentions nothing of eating habits; are we to believe each man (in 1982 no less) was eating a very healthy diet and all other factors were taken into consideration with regard to their lifestyle? For all we know they sat in front of the TV with a big bowl of ice cream, or ate a heavy meal in the evening before sitting down to relax. What about stressors, work or otherwise? Meh.
I wonder if this applies to people who have nervous energy and move around when at their desks... I've read about studies that correlate your amount of nervous energy (tapping your toes, etc.) to your likelyhood of being obese.
Maybe they're talking about movement on a different scale.
This smacks of the kind of news you see on The Today Show. I wouldn't be alarmed by this, we're a pretty adaptable species. Just stay active in your free time and you'll be fine. Sheesh.
1. The sit and watch - lecture model needs to die.
2. Students need to be given the option of sitting or standing in class and be allowed to alternate.
3. Punishments like sitting in detention, losing recess, or timeouts, should be replaced with activities like squats, sports, running laps, or simply walking.
The wisdom of taking a hyperactive kid's recess away has always baffled me.
[+] [-] carbocation|15 years ago|reply
23 hours per week vs 11 hours per week? I call this a warning sign because it screams of post-hoc analysis. Unless they then used these as pre-specified cutoffs for later studies, I would be very cautious not to overinterpret.
[+] [-] gjm11|15 years ago|reply
... Except that, looking at the abstract (there's a link in the NYT article), I find this: "Men who reported >10 h/wk riding in a car or >23 h/wk of combined sedentary behavior had 82% and 64% greater risk of dying from CVD than those who reported <4 or <11 h/wk, respectively." [I've changed one unhelpful bit of notation.] So, looks like data mining after all.
On the other other hand, as well as those (possibly cherry-picked) thresholds there are statements like "After age adjustment, time riding in a car and combined time spent in these two sedentary behaviors were positively (P(trend) < 0.001) associated with CVD death." which suggests something less ad hoc.
[+] [-] sdfx|15 years ago|reply
Participants were 7744 men (20-89 yr) initially free of CVD who returned a mail-back survey during 1982. Time spent watching TV and time spent riding in a car were reported. Mortality data were ascertained through the National Death Index until December 31, 2003.
They noted that they adjusted for age. I presume other factors like the economic status correlate also with the time they watched tv. Don't know if they've adjusted for that as well.
[+] [-] palish|15 years ago|reply
What exactly are you saying? I honestly can't decipher the meaning of your words.
[+] [-] roundsquare|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lhorie|15 years ago|reply
There are some pretty simple ways to add extra light physical activity to your daily routine. I tend to drink a lot of water, which means I need to go fill my bottle a few times a day and walk to the washroom more often than I would otherwise.
There was also a TED talk about communities in Italy and Japan with long lifespans and lifestyles that involved lots of minor activities
[+] [-] kscaldef|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thebigshane|15 years ago|reply
Summary: To find the path to long life and health, Dan Buettner and team study the world's "Blue Zones," communities whose elders live with vim and vigor to record-setting age. At TEDxTC, he shares the 9 common diet and lifestyle habits that keep them spry past age 100.
[+] [-] AlekseyKorzun|15 years ago|reply
I don't think article is very scientific; 'hitting the gym' can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. They can sit in the gym, do cardio, do weights, do stretches, etc. Too many variables. Obviously if subject goes to the gym and does 20 curls before calling it quits there will be absolutely no benefit.
If you hit the gym during the lunch break or before/after work and throw cardio/stretching in (not just weights) you will be fine. Or simply do some good stretching here and there; problem solved.
[+] [-] edkennedy|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chaostheory|15 years ago|reply
For me to really take this seriously, these people need to be observed in some non-intrusive way. We do have the technology now, or so I think.
[+] [-] enjo|15 years ago|reply
There is an entire body of research dedicated to ascertaining the quality and reliability of surveys, how surveys are delivered, and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. In doing these studies those methodologies are generally well understood (and clearly cited) as part of the paper itself.
While I know those of us who where educated in the 'hard' sciences (I'm a physicist by training) find it hard to buy into these... I've been quite impressed by how rigorous they really are.
I haven't read this particular study, so I may be way off base... but the fact that the fundamentals of the study involved a survey do not make it bad or invalid science (as long as the study was conducted properly that is).
[+] [-] mambodog|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekanes|15 years ago|reply
Non-affiliate link: http://www.amazon.com/Stanley-11031-Telescopic-Plastic-Sawho...
Horribly outdated but accurate pic: http://icecreamforeveryone.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/img_0...
I feel more creative, have more energy throughout the day and my back feels stronger.
[+] [-] billpaetzke|15 years ago|reply
I love love love standing while working on the computer. There was a transition period of 2 weeks for me of leg and foot soreness. Best of all, my pre-existing knee pain went away!!
I don't have a pic yet. But I will post it to my software blog sooner than later: http://bp321.com/code/
[+] [-] edkennedy|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ams6110|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dialtone|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsharpe|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] starkfist|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elai|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] solson|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] powrtoch|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tobtoh|15 years ago|reply
I've always been on the thin side which people put down to high metabolism, but I suspect a lot of it is also to the fact I am in fact almost always in motion (even if only a small part of me).
[+] [-] kevinskii|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] palish|15 years ago|reply
Instead, I go through life accepting the fact that I'll be dead by 80. I find it both motivating and relaxing. Instead of literally wasting 20% of my time at the gym, I can instead waste it in much more interesting ways: on games, programming, TV shows. I believe this will result in an overall healthier mental lifestyle. And since my body maintains a constant weight of ~215 pounds, and since I have no use for physical stamina or strong muscles, I literally have no use for the gym.
[+] [-] rfugger|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dgallagher|15 years ago|reply
*Technically you don't sit on your knees. You sit on your bottom (bearing most of the weight), and use your shins for balance.
[+] [-] c1sc0|15 years ago|reply
What makes people want to spend money on tools like this when the greatest fitness tool is the human body itself?
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|15 years ago|reply
"Alright, we each have a month to come up with, manufacture, and advertise the most retarded exercise tool we can come up with. After six months of sales, we'll determine the winner by units shipped. Loser has to do a line of blow off the winner's genitals."
[+] [-] ams6110|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhd|15 years ago|reply
(And to be honest, the ads for pure resistance workouts are even douchier.)
[+] [-] davidw|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chadgeidel|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdlang|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] awongh|15 years ago|reply
Maybe they're talking about movement on a different scale.
[+] [-] marknutter|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sliverstorm|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] solson|15 years ago|reply
1. The sit and watch - lecture model needs to die. 2. Students need to be given the option of sitting or standing in class and be allowed to alternate. 3. Punishments like sitting in detention, losing recess, or timeouts, should be replaced with activities like squats, sports, running laps, or simply walking.
The wisdom of taking a hyperactive kid's recess away has always baffled me.
[+] [-] ck2|15 years ago|reply
Well there go my health insurance rates (if I could afford insurance).
[+] [-] thomasfl|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dpritchett|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quizbiz|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] etal|15 years ago|reply
It takes a little while to get used to it, but once you're there, standing all day is just fine.
[+] [-] fjabre|15 years ago|reply
Who knows what to make of this.. It's not easy hearing that the profession you've chosen puts you at greater risk for heart disease.
If this is true I bet it could be balanced by good diet. I also have a dog which forces me to walk for at least 1-2 hours a day.