

Confirmed: He Who Sits the Most Dies the Soonest - siavosh
http://m.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/confirmed-he-who-sits-the-most-dies-the-soonest/256101/

======
reasonattlm
This was a statistical work from data on 220,000 people in a large Australian
longitudinal study, and it claims to show that sitting time correlates with
increased mortality independently of level of physical activity. Some
thoughts:

[http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/04/sitting-time-
corr...](http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/04/sitting-time-correlating-
with-mortality-independently-of-exercise.php)

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.

You might look at a recent study on activity and Alzheimer's disease that was
one of the few to use measuring devices rather than reports of activity. One
point that emerges is that a fair degree of ongoing low level activity and
exercise won't be classified as such by the participants of study without
machine measurement. Housework, taking out the trash, the small increase in
energy expenditure from standing while waiting versus sitting while waiting,
that sort of thing repeated day in and day out. How much you are sitting
really does sound a lot like a proxy for how much activity you are undertaking
when you are doing things that most people don't really count as activity.

~~~
bunderbunder
I'm guessing the reporting on things other than just standing varies widely
too. Personal anecdote from a person who spends a lot more of the day standing
than most people I know: What counts in my brain as simply "returning books to
the library" would count as exercise - specifically, "hour of brisk walking"
for most people I know. And for many of them it would count as unusually
strenuous exercise, whereas for me it's just everyday transportation and
doesn't really count as exercise at all. Even if were to be specifically asked
to keep track of it, I suspect I'd still end up underreporting it. I was
recently surprised to discover my brother lives more than a mile away from me.
I make that walk all the time, and had thought it was about half as much.

It makes me worry that participant self-reporting cannot seriously be
considered a reasonable way to measure levels of physical activity.

At least, not without research specifically designed to validate it for that
purpose. Which might exist. I really haven't looked into it. If it does,
please ignore all previous inane babble.

------
gwern
This reminds me of another correlational study I was tickled pink to read, and
I just had to quote it in one of my essays <http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine#fn7>
:

> "…Based on these figures, and expected deaths from all causes, the authors
> calculated that an individual who spends a lifetime average of six hours a
> day watching TV can expect to live just under five fewer years than someone
> who does not watch TV. These figures compare with the impact of other well
> known lifestyle factors on the risk of death from cardiovascular disease
> after the age of 50, including physical activity and obesity. For example,
> other research has shown that lifelong smoking is associated with the
> shortening of life expectancy by more than 4 years after the age of 50, with
> the average loss of life from one cigarette calculated to be 11 minutes -
> equivalent to half an hour of TV watching, according to the authors’ risk
> framework."

Now isn't _that_ a kick in the rear? If you gave up half an hour of TV to
smoke a cigarette, you... did nothing to your life expectancy, if the
correlations are to be taken causally.

~~~
sheeps
Make sure you stand while smoking it, though. :-)

~~~
stcredzero
At a bar with a whiskey?

------
jalanco
This story keeps popping up on HN and elsewhere. And the common solution I've
read is "Please, just get a standup desk!" as if standing up and not moving is
healthier than sitting and not moving. I've seen no study that supports that
conclusion. I think the message should be: moving is healthier than not
moving, which is hardly news.

~~~
noblethrasher
[http://health.yahoo.net/experts/menshealth/most-dangerous-
th...](http://health.yahoo.net/experts/menshealth/most-dangerous-thing-youll-
do-all-day)

"British researchers found that (sitting) bus drivers were twice as likely to
die of heart attacks as (standing) trolley operators."

The idea is that bus drivers and trolley operators are similar in all the
other important respects (e.g. socio-economic backgrounds).

~~~
therobotking
My father was a bus driver and he had a heart attack in his late 50s. The
number of men he worked with who also had heart attacks was staggering. When
he visits the hospital for his regular check-ups he always meets other bus
drivers. It's really quite alarming.

~~~
stcredzero
Diesel fumes?

------
csallen
These studies keep appearing, but they're never detailed enough for me.
Correlation is not equal to causation. It's meaningless to say "people who sit
more die more" unless we know _why_ this is the case. At the very least, I
want to see a laundry list of controls: physical exercise, weight, diet,
stress, etc. More than a few of these articles contain useless warnings like,
"sitting leads to obesity." Great, then don't say sitting kills you, say
_obesity_ kills you.

------
bwh2
I work at a standing desk and I've noticed several benefits:

* No leg pain. Extended sitting hurts blood flow to my legs, causing leg pain.

* Less back pain. Even in chairs designed to promote good posture, I somehow manage to slouch or arch and give myself back problems.

* Strong calves.

* I'm more likely to drink water. I'm already standing, so there's a smaller barrier to filling up my bottle at the water cooler.

~~~
bcl
How long did it take to notice these results? Are you normally an active
person or is standing your primary form of 'exercise'?

~~~
bwh2
I'm normally active. I thought standing all day would tire me out,
discouraging me from normal exercise. But it's been the opposite; I'm much
more inclined to exercise after work now. Probably because my leg and back
pain have disappeared.

The first two weeks are tough. Your legs get tired, feet sore, etc. But after
that, the benefits kicked in. I also bought decent sneakers and an anti-
fatigue mat to stand on (~$20).

------
Rage
Ok, but WHY ? 40% more chance of dying in the next 3 years, but WHY ? because
the chair broke ?

They just did statistics and conclude that sitting is harmfull. Ok. But i'm
sure we can also find that, for example, more men died than women. Does that
mean being a man can kill you ?

I don't mean being sat most of the time isn't harmfull, but i mean this study
doesn't PROVE anything.

~~~
MarkMc
Yes, being a man gives you more chance of dying, but this study showed the
increased risk of sitting even when taking this into account. Their result
summary says they adjusted for factors including "sex, age, education,
urban/rural residence, physical activity, body mass index, smoking status,
self-rated health, and disability": <http://archinte.ama-
assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/172/6/494>

~~~
Rage
okay, but still, why ? Statistics aren't reliable for they can state anything.

~~~
aGHz
What you're showing here is a very typical fundamental misunderstanding of
what statistics is. It's not that they can "state anything", it's that
everything they state comes with a confidence interval, so they are
-probabilistically- very reliable actually.

~~~
Rage
Hu, i meant, you can make statistics "state" anything you want is you twist
them right.

BUT STILL, WHY ARE WE DYIN YOUNGER IFF SEATED OFTEN ?

------
devs1010
Honestly, I'd like to see more studies like this to the point where it is
irrefutable that sitting all day causes harm because the way it is now, I feel
like a lot of companies basically force their workers to sit all day. They
don't allow work from home, or allow it only one day a week, etc, yet they
also don't provide any sort of office environment that enables sitting. At the
office I work at now, for example, there is no one who stands and it would
take a re-working of the entire office to allow it, as there are dividers that
can be seen over when standing, so it would be rather awkward, I think, to be
standing as you would then be staring down at the person across from you. It
would be interesting to hear a case where a company is held liable for forcing
someone to sit all day, year after year, I think that could at least nudge a
lot of organizations in the right direction towards allowing more remote work
options where a person can better control / configure their work environment.

------
csomar
Oh god, and I sit on my chair for more than 15 hours a day. Does anyone knows
the probability of dying after 3 years.

If it's 0.0005% likely that I'll die in the next 3 years, how does 40% or 100%
changes that? It still very unlikely that I'll die.

~~~
MarkMc
Well there were 5,405 deaths among the group of 222,497 people aged 45 and
above. That's an average chance of death in 3 years of 2.4% for this age
group.

------
wukix
The solution: standing desks.

The misconception: that you need to stand _all day_. Alternate! Sit sometimes,
stand sometimes.

How? Get an adjustable desk or table that moves up and down, allowing you to
stand periodically while working. For example:
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000QA0EHI/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000QA0EHI/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=wukixcom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B000QA0EHI)
(get two: one for your front, one for your side).

------
MarkMc
This article made me get off my chair, put my chair on my table, and put my
laptop on the chair.

~~~
olalonde
Some food for thought:

 _The really important thing is not to live but to live well._ -Socrates

------
cleverjake
not confirmed. suggested by study results.

~~~
Rage
yup, nothing is proven here.

------
seanlinmt
What about lying down doing work on a laptop in bed?

~~~
corin_
No idea about life expectancy, but chances are your posture will be terrible
and it won't do your back any good, which can definitely come back to bite you
later on.

------
wwwtyro
Is there room for compromise?

[http://www.amazon.com/Ergonomic-Kneeling-Posture-Office-
WL-S...](http://www.amazon.com/Ergonomic-Kneeling-Posture-Office-WL-
SB-101-GG/dp/B000TMFSQK)

------
malkia
Isn't standing all day, bad for people that have vascular problem?

------
sathishmanohar
> Its most striking finding was that people who sat more than 11 hours a day
> had a 40% higher risk of dying in the next three years than people who sat
> less than four hours a day.

I don't normally call bullshit on stories, but this statistic is f'ing stupid,
I've spent 14 years in school and 3 years in college after that some 3 years
as web designer. Its fair to say all that time, I've spent more than 11 hours
a day, sitting. So, statistically speaking 40% of my schoolmates, college
mates and colleagues should be dead by now, unfortunately thats is not the
case.

~~~
jessriedel
That's a "40% _higher_ risk", not a 40% risk.

~~~
sathishmanohar
So, how _high_ is the risk if out of 1000 people, nobody died due to sitting?

~~~
corin_
As a smoker, looking at myself shows that cigarettes cause 0% chance of death
in a sample of 1 - you wouldn't neccesarily expect your 1000 person sample to
show results as accurate as a much bigger sample size (222,497).

But more importantly - this research was done on people over the age of 45,
your 1000 people were aged 5-24. Using your age range I imagine we could prove
that smoking 60 a day and eating McDonalds for every meal isn't particularly
dangerous.

