The whole interesting part of the article to me is the (mostly unexamined) claim that sitting is still a problem in the exercising population. Everything afterwards is hypothetical discussion of mechanisms without looking at outcomes (at least for exercise vs no-exercise groups).
> Since 2010, researchers have been keen to point out that sedentary behaviour is distinct from a lack of physical activity. You can get sufficient exercise per day, and still sit for too long.
They could have delved into this a little more! The link is to a 2021 review (not 2010). Did they somehow RCT people into exercise vs no-exercise groups, or is this observational? Is it really just that our "active" guidelines are too low (30 minutes a day) and sort of assume a baseline active job during the other hours? (E.g., maybe guidelines should call for 2-3 hours of activity a day, some of which can be covered by non-sedentary jobs.)
Anyway, just trying to figure out what to take away from this as an office worker who gets 1.5-2 hours of exercise a day.
That Sitting Too Much Is Bad Even If You Exercise has been discussed for maybe more than ten years now. There’s nothing particularly “interesting” about not substantiating it in a BBC article.
And how would exercise compensate for sitting too much? That doesn’t make sense on the face of it. Exercise primarily builds strength and cardiovascular conditioning. It doesn’t (on the face of it) compensate for sitting at least eight hours a weekday if you’re an office worker[1] in addition to sedentary hobbies.
Again from my naive perspective: sitting shortens the hip flexor which in turn can lead to anterior pelvic tilt which in turn can compress the lower back/spine both while sitting and while walking around (active). That’s just one example of a biomechanical conditioning that doesn’t just get fixed by exercise, or at least not without directed exercise (try to notice sometime how many people have an S-arched back as opposed to a more neutral (slight sway) lower back).
[1] Shout out to managers who get the opportunity to “walk and talk”.
I went from a pretty physically active job in facilities management to an IT role working from home about 3 years ago and have had a slew of physical issues that I think are related to sitting down 10+ hours a day such as sciatica. I real a book called "Deskbound: Standing Up to a Sitting World" by Dr. Kelly Starrett and it's pretty damning. Similar to the old comparison that smoking a cigarette takes ~7 minutes off of your life, they claim that every hour you sit down takes ~11 minutes off of your life.
Regardless of everything I have read about sitting down being terrible for you, I just can't seem to get into a routine of standing up. Once I sit down for an engagement / lunch / etc., I just simply don't make it back up that day. I have become terribly lazy, I guess.
Standing up might be less bad (Edit: it is less bad) but I’ve seen no direct argument that it’s optimal, either. The people who are into this stuff seem to be proponents of variation over standing only. (Standing a lot is annoying and tiring.) The problem though is when they demonstrate that with their 14" laptop on a various surfaces, lying and sitting cross-legged and whatnot… I’m not trading away my monitors anytime soon.
Don’t believe the BS. Simply make sure you stretch the inverse sitting position every day for 5 min and go for a 30 min walk. It solved all my sitting problems. Sitting down is a great way for you to relax and focus.
apple watch and a walking pad with standing desk really changed my life. i tried all three individually but only since i have all three combined do i really naturally embed walking in my work life. the watch reminds every hour in which i did not get up, tracks progress and gives feeling of reward and accomplishments, the walking pad allows standing without having to change legs and hurting feet and walking on a standing desk allows to continue entertainment or most work tasks. I now dont spend any day without 2h / 8km walking. There is just something that feels different in my energy and sense of happiness when moving throughout a day.
Of note: the issue is not so much sitting in particular, it's being sedentary. Standing for 5 hrs at a time is really not much better than sitting for that same duration, since humans are (understandably) well-adapted to stand upright with minimal metabolic cost. Sitting is bad because it displaces physical activity, not because there is something uniquely bad about being in a chair. Take a walk break.
> Sitting is bad because it displaces physical activity…
This is at odds with the article, which states:
> Since 2010, researchers have been keen to point out that sedentary behaviour is distinct from a lack of physical activity. You can get sufficient exercise per day, and still sit for too long.
No, it isn’t simply about being sedentary, and yes sitting is especially problematic.
1. Sitting is the optimal position for getting work done like on a computer while almost not engaging any muscles beneath your shoulders (bad)
2. It tends to shorten the hip flexors which ultimately can affect your lower back
3. Any sedentary but still somewhat active position tends to be viewed as better, such as standing or squatting. There are tribes in Africa that are very sedentary but don’t sit on chairs—they squat instead
Source: Move Your DNA (book)
The problem for me is that, while I do have and use standing desks, I won’t use them for more than thirty minutes at a time. Often thirty minutes a day only (on a good day). So for me I just haven’t found a lot of good alternatives to either replace sitting or minimize it. I have seriously tried to stand on my knees at the office but eh it’s kind of painful and distracting and you get derisive attention.
EDIT: Oh shoot, I guess this proves that I don’t use it enough: I totally forgot that I also have a walking treadmill. Oh man it’s actually quite nice, and I am able to walk faster than I imagined while getting work done (there’s a limit to it mostly determined by resisting natural arm sway, you know while working on the computer). Yeah you can move while both programming and playing video games.
Some of the mechanisms they talk about are specific to sitting. But I don't know if they've made the connection between those specific mechanisms and outcomes, or if they're just theoretical.
While the default is probably minimal metabolic cost, there are people I have seen who are more prone to shift their weight constantly while standing.. Almost a foot-motionless dance who are -- if doing it all day long -- probably burning serious calories that way.
While I imagine you could adapt the same to a sitting posture, you're a lot less likely to be working against your whole body weight. This observation probably applies to (some of) those "standing desk" people, too.
Don't wave the false flag of "WFH" for this one. When I am home I can easily walk to the coffee pot, wander around, pace, etc. I can also take 10 mins to walk the dog or put away laundry etc. This quick break is harder at work for me. In either environment, I am on Teams calls regardless.
I recently swapped out my office chair for a coffee table. It allows me to sit without back support in a variety of positions - cross legged, feet on the ground, sometimes with my hands supporting me.. even hunched over if I'm being a bit lazy / sucked into whatever is happening on screen.
The results have been almost instantaneous - back feels stronger, I'm not as stiff overall - general mobility and flexibility is better.
Took a week or so to get used to. Initially I wanted to get up and go find a couch a lot. Now I can sit for hours, but like you mentioned - with the small movements - it's never totally sedentary.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that countless hours-per-day held in a static posture is right there with repetitive motion in terms of health consequences. Both are a kind of bizarre thing to do, and it's hard to imagine that human evolution had much opportunity to optimize for any particular sustained posture or deeply repetitive motion when much broader variety seems to be the norm throughout most of culture and history.
You wouldn't expect an hour of doing something else, however vigorous or dynamic, to really overcome the consequences of such a contrived routine.
If you want care about this stuff (it's fair not to; you'll still live as long as your peers if you don't), you do just need to figure out how to make frequent, non-repetitive movement part of your day.
That we didn't evolve to read doesn't mean I don't enjoy a book or it can't be healthy for me to relax in that escape. This is not a useful predictor for whether or not something is healthy
See separable verbs in German. There are a huge number of particles that completely change the meaning of verbs. For example sehen = to see, aussehen = to look (like)
Adverbial particles are certainly interesting, and widely used in English. Sometimes they are mandatory for a verb; othertimes they are redundant or change the meaning. Sometimes they take no direct object, but if they take it there are 3 places it can be (before, after, or size-dependent):
For "sit" we have a wide variety:
* plain "sit" - a variety of meanings, most intransitive. Notably means "relax" unlike the other forms. Note that it can be followed by a preposition with the same spelling as the particles below (e.g. "sit down the hall")
* "sit down" - physical movement, also used for meetings. When transitive, the DO always goes before the particle.
* "sit up" - physical movement (from "slouching" or "lying down"), always intransitive. A following "with" is sometimes analyzed as another particle but could just be a preposition.
* "sit in" - protest, temporarily attend. Always(?) intransitive (if followed by an object it is the object of preposition "in", not particle "in"); often followed by an "on", "for", or "with" prepositional phrase (though those are sometimes analyzed as additional particles instead)
* "sit off" - not putting full effort in sports. Always transitive, with the DO always after the particle. I'm not familiar with this personally.
* "sit out" - not participate. When transitive, the DO goes before the particle if short (by default, no more than determiner + object), but after if long. So, usually "sit the game out" with "sit out the whole game", but it is possible to stretch the definition of "short" slightly.
Plus some others that are sometimes analyzed as adverbial particles but can also be analyzed as normal adverbs or prepositions:
* "sit around"/"sit about" - idle. Usually intransitive, so can also be analyzed as a normal adverb, but can also be transitive (usually followed by "the house") which would make it a preposition ... Related, I utterly reject the abomination that analyzes words as prepositions when they don't have an object.
* "sit back" - relax or recline. Intransitive, so can also be analyzed as a normal adverb.
* "sit [idly] by" - refrain from intervening. Intransitive, so can also be analyzed as a normal adverb.
* "sit for" - babysit or model for. Transitive. I strongly dispute this analysis since the preposition interpretation provides all the meaning already ... especially given the similarity to "hold office for" which I haven't seen analyzed this way.
* "sit on" - delay, restrain, take no action. Transitive and the DO follows, so "on" can also be analyzed as a preposition.
* "sit over" - make room (intransitive), be left of and thus play cards after (transitive), burden (transitive)
* "sit under" - be right of and thus play cards before (transitive), learn from a religious teacher (transitive)
* "sit through" - remain through something unpleasant. Transitive and the DO follows, so maybe "through" is just a preposition.
* "sit with" - harmonize, reflect. Transitive and the DO follows, so maybe "with" is just a preposition
A standing desk has helped a lot for me. I also recently got a treadmill desk - would recommend if walking while taking calls is not distracting for you.
Nope. Sitting down is a great way for you to rest and focus.
The real problem is that when you regularly put your body into any specific position for a long time, you really need to stretch the opposite position to make sure your muscles stay flexible instead of locking up.
I spend a lot of time sitting at work and home. So I make sure I always inverse the stiffing muscles by stretching the inverse position. Just stretching 5 min a day (and going for a 30+ minute walk) fixed the problems I previously had.
[+] [-] loeg|1 year ago|reply
> Since 2010, researchers have been keen to point out that sedentary behaviour is distinct from a lack of physical activity. You can get sufficient exercise per day, and still sit for too long.
They could have delved into this a little more! The link is to a 2021 review (not 2010). Did they somehow RCT people into exercise vs no-exercise groups, or is this observational? Is it really just that our "active" guidelines are too low (30 minutes a day) and sort of assume a baseline active job during the other hours? (E.g., maybe guidelines should call for 2-3 hours of activity a day, some of which can be covered by non-sedentary jobs.)
Anyway, just trying to figure out what to take away from this as an office worker who gets 1.5-2 hours of exercise a day.
[+] [-] keybored|1 year ago|reply
And how would exercise compensate for sitting too much? That doesn’t make sense on the face of it. Exercise primarily builds strength and cardiovascular conditioning. It doesn’t (on the face of it) compensate for sitting at least eight hours a weekday if you’re an office worker[1] in addition to sedentary hobbies.
Again from my naive perspective: sitting shortens the hip flexor which in turn can lead to anterior pelvic tilt which in turn can compress the lower back/spine both while sitting and while walking around (active). That’s just one example of a biomechanical conditioning that doesn’t just get fixed by exercise, or at least not without directed exercise (try to notice sometime how many people have an S-arched back as opposed to a more neutral (slight sway) lower back).
[1] Shout out to managers who get the opportunity to “walk and talk”.
[+] [-] scrapcode|1 year ago|reply
Regardless of everything I have read about sitting down being terrible for you, I just can't seem to get into a routine of standing up. Once I sit down for an engagement / lunch / etc., I just simply don't make it back up that day. I have become terribly lazy, I guess.
[+] [-] keybored|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] knallfrosch|1 year ago|reply
I don't have one and don't use the one I have in the office, but still.
[+] [-] ikr678|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] deterministic|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jFriedensreich|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] levocardia|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] wanderingstan|1 year ago|reply
This is at odds with the article, which states:
> Since 2010, researchers have been keen to point out that sedentary behaviour is distinct from a lack of physical activity. You can get sufficient exercise per day, and still sit for too long.
[+] [-] keybored|1 year ago|reply
1. Sitting is the optimal position for getting work done like on a computer while almost not engaging any muscles beneath your shoulders (bad)
2. It tends to shorten the hip flexors which ultimately can affect your lower back
3. Any sedentary but still somewhat active position tends to be viewed as better, such as standing or squatting. There are tribes in Africa that are very sedentary but don’t sit on chairs—they squat instead
Source: Move Your DNA (book)
The problem for me is that, while I do have and use standing desks, I won’t use them for more than thirty minutes at a time. Often thirty minutes a day only (on a good day). So for me I just haven’t found a lot of good alternatives to either replace sitting or minimize it. I have seriously tried to stand on my knees at the office but eh it’s kind of painful and distracting and you get derisive attention.
EDIT: Oh shoot, I guess this proves that I don’t use it enough: I totally forgot that I also have a walking treadmill. Oh man it’s actually quite nice, and I am able to walk faster than I imagined while getting work done (there’s a limit to it mostly determined by resisting natural arm sway, you know while working on the computer). Yeah you can move while both programming and playing video games.
[+] [-] loeg|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] cb321|1 year ago|reply
While I imagine you could adapt the same to a sitting posture, you're a lot less likely to be working against your whole body weight. This observation probably applies to (some of) those "standing desk" people, too.
[+] [-] fred_is_fred|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] elric|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] vishalontheline|1 year ago|reply
The results have been almost instantaneous - back feels stronger, I'm not as stiff overall - general mobility and flexibility is better.
Took a week or so to get used to. Initially I wanted to get up and go find a couch a lot. Now I can sit for hours, but like you mentioned - with the small movements - it's never totally sedentary.
[+] [-] swatcoder|1 year ago|reply
You wouldn't expect an hour of doing something else, however vigorous or dynamic, to really overcome the consequences of such a contrived routine.
If you want care about this stuff (it's fair not to; you'll still live as long as your peers if you don't), you do just need to figure out how to make frequent, non-repetitive movement part of your day.
[+] [-] Aachen|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] NovemberWhiskey|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] mark4|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] noam_k|1 year ago|reply
(I'm American, and curious if British have similar/differing expressions.)
[+] [-] mkartic|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jjtheblunt|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] bowsamic|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] o11c|1 year ago|reply
For "sit" we have a wide variety:
* plain "sit" - a variety of meanings, most intransitive. Notably means "relax" unlike the other forms. Note that it can be followed by a preposition with the same spelling as the particles below (e.g. "sit down the hall")
* "sit down" - physical movement, also used for meetings. When transitive, the DO always goes before the particle.
* "sit up" - physical movement (from "slouching" or "lying down"), always intransitive. A following "with" is sometimes analyzed as another particle but could just be a preposition.
* "sit in" - protest, temporarily attend. Always(?) intransitive (if followed by an object it is the object of preposition "in", not particle "in"); often followed by an "on", "for", or "with" prepositional phrase (though those are sometimes analyzed as additional particles instead)
* "sit off" - not putting full effort in sports. Always transitive, with the DO always after the particle. I'm not familiar with this personally.
* "sit out" - not participate. When transitive, the DO goes before the particle if short (by default, no more than determiner + object), but after if long. So, usually "sit the game out" with "sit out the whole game", but it is possible to stretch the definition of "short" slightly.
Plus some others that are sometimes analyzed as adverbial particles but can also be analyzed as normal adverbs or prepositions:
* "sit around"/"sit about" - idle. Usually intransitive, so can also be analyzed as a normal adverb, but can also be transitive (usually followed by "the house") which would make it a preposition ... Related, I utterly reject the abomination that analyzes words as prepositions when they don't have an object.
* "sit back" - relax or recline. Intransitive, so can also be analyzed as a normal adverb.
* "sit [idly] by" - refrain from intervening. Intransitive, so can also be analyzed as a normal adverb.
* "sit for" - babysit or model for. Transitive. I strongly dispute this analysis since the preposition interpretation provides all the meaning already ... especially given the similarity to "hold office for" which I haven't seen analyzed this way.
* "sit on" - delay, restrain, take no action. Transitive and the DO follows, so "on" can also be analyzed as a preposition.
* "sit over" - make room (intransitive), be left of and thus play cards after (transitive), burden (transitive)
* "sit under" - be right of and thus play cards before (transitive), learn from a religious teacher (transitive)
* "sit through" - remain through something unpleasant. Transitive and the DO follows, so maybe "through" is just a preposition.
* "sit with" - harmonize, reflect. Transitive and the DO follows, so maybe "with" is just a preposition
[+] [-] masherm|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] deterministic|1 year ago|reply
The real problem is that when you regularly put your body into any specific position for a long time, you really need to stretch the opposite position to make sure your muscles stay flexible instead of locking up.
I spend a lot of time sitting at work and home. So I make sure I always inverse the stiffing muscles by stretching the inverse position. Just stretching 5 min a day (and going for a 30+ minute walk) fixed the problems I previously had.