Why Sitting May Be Bad for Your Brain

[anoplus]

I started stretching and walking around once an hour or so few years ago, and it is the simplest most efficient prevention to various pains. Even in harsh deadlines, when I feel the slightest pain, I stop everything, and get-up/stretch/walk around for 5 minutes. Health is above everything else.

[fb03]

Dude, I'm trying to do this right now because of back pain and stuff.

It looks nice on paper but I have trouble focusing so when I actually get in the zone I tend to forget and hours go by, I only stop when I'm actually experiencing pain (an stimulus which reminds me to get back to reality).

Any tips?

[jhabdas]

Thinking too much can be bad for your brain too, which is why I'm grateful this article immediately turned black and unreadable on the HN Android app.

[amelius]

Is there a way to measure this? E.g. if blood circulation is impaired, I get a warning? (And why doesn't my body give the warning, by the way?)

[dhaneshnm]

I wonder how this affects people who meditate regularly for few hours every day. They mostly sit cross legged or in lotus pose, but they do sit for a significant amount of time.

[auggierose]

I recently introduced a glassboard to my (home) office, and it makes me stand up regularly, so that's a possible alternative to a standing desk (which I don't like).

[bitL]

If you have the luxury of home office, get a fitness bank next to your computer and once an hour do some weight exercises, or once 4 hours do some 10-minute HIIT. It'd do wonders to you. Earning $ and getting ripped at the same time ;-)

[amelius]

If only these glassboards had a "snapshot" button, that allowed me to save the image right into my git working tree ...

(phone camera is too much of a hassle)

[cimmanom]

What is a glassboard, and how does it make you stand?

[semi-extrinsic]

There is a Cochrane review [1] on the health effects of reducing time spent sitting at work that came out two years ago, which laid out the truth in no uncertain terms:

"The quality of evidence is low to very low for most interventions, mainly because of limitations in study protocols and small sample sizes."

And still people keep doing shit like this, performing studies with fifteen people??

[1] https://www.cochrane.org/CD010912/OCCHEALTH_workplace-interv...

[dalbasal]

Idk the exact answer, but I doubt the reason is "researchers don't understand the statistics." It is some "how the sausage is made" reason, most likely.

For example: researchers have the budget/resources to to a preliminary study. They use the interesting results of this study to secure funding for a larger sample size study.

Btw, a small sample size study isn't useless necessarily. You can refine methodology, with less on the line. You can also (more or less) validly exclude certain conclusions, to avoid wasting resources on a wider study.

The problem is with pop science headlines, like it is in any other journalistic field. I think it's less of a problem though, than many think. Publishing in the popular press needs to be understood as "academics working on X" not "X has been proven."

[pasta]

"performing studies with fifteen people"

The study only shows that blood flow to your brain drops when you are sitting for a long period of time. So I think 15 people is a huge sample in this case.

The study doesn't even has any conclusions. So I think 15 people is fine.

The next step could be gathering data from thousands of people to check weather this causes brain damage in any form. But that's not what the study was about. Only the title of the article suggests this.

[gls2ro]

The study you are citing is about "interventions aimed at reducing sitting time at work".

It is not about the health benefits of reducing time spent sitting, but about the effectiveness of methods of reducing the time spent sitting.

So the study you cited does not support your assertion about health effects:

> There is a Cochrane review [1] on the health effects of reducing time spent sitting at work

If you have studies that does invalidate the health benefits of standing vs sitting I am very interested to read them and find out more.

[anonytrary]

The last company I worked for had a "market research" report about mobile data users that claimed 75% of people do X, the rest do Y. The sample size was 4. What's worse is that the report was beautifully styled. It's amazing how much money can be wasted on moot work when you have funding.

[Leary]

I'm still waiting for the nytimes article on why sitting may be bad for my butt.

[prdonahue]

It's actually terrible for your butt (or at least your gluteus muscles, especially the gluteus medius).

When you sit all day these muscles get inhibited/weak. When they're weak, you're more likely to have lower back pain. I sit a lot so I try to counteract that (as best as can be done) with some targeted glute med stuff after work.

Check out http://posturedirect.com/is-sitting-destroying-your-butt-mus... for some more detail.

[coldtea]

Accumulate a couple of decades of sitting and compare your butt to someone who doesn't have an office work but otherwise eats similarly.

[peaktechisnow]

Sample size: 15 people.