
Why Sitting May Be Bad for Your Brain - a_w
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/well/move/why-sitting-may-be-bad-for-your-brain.html
======
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?

~~~
degenerate
I had the same problem. Tried the standing desk, no go. Couldn't get in the
zone ever (and I tried it for 2 full weeks).

My tip: drink a LOT of fluids. You will have to keep going to the bathroom
which is a natural break point, and not something as abrupt as an alarm; the
urge to pee sort of creeps on you, so you can stay in the zone until you
really gotta go. The hydration is good for your brain/body anyway, so win-win.

~~~
marviel
Seconded.

Found that lack of fluids (water!!!) was the source of many of my headaches,
so I came at this solution from that angle.

As an aside, this does require you to chunk your work differently. I've found
it's a great practice to use such opportunities to keep up with the
communication part of your work, so that when you hit the desk again, your
mind & messaging apps are clear of those social notifications

------
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).

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

~~~
wyclif
I think he means one of these. Highly recommended, BTW:
[http://www.glasswhiteboard.com/](http://www.glasswhiteboard.com/)

~~~
dmd
warning, autoplaying video

------
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...](https://www.cochrane.org/CD010912/OCCHEALTH_workplace-
interventions-methods-reducing-time-spent-sitting-work)

~~~
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."

~~~
koboll
>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."

Writing a headline that misrepresents a single study's conclusion as "proven"
or what "scientists say" \-- especially when the conclusion is contradicted by
most others on the subject -- should be considered by journalistic ethics
watchdogs as an extreme violation bordering on an outright lie.

The media seems simultaneously bewildered as to why the public no longer
trusts it, while incapable of recognizing and responding properly to obvious
breaches of the public trust like inflated science headlines.

~~~
dalbasal
Its not just science, it's anything. Also, it's not just media, it's
everything.

The only thing to do is individual. Take "facts" with a grain of salt, at the
very least until you have read the article. Do not take headlines as facts.

You can just read academic journal abstracts, if you want a more academic and
precise reading materials.

There are trade offs between rigour and the digestible content intended to be
browsed over coffee.

~~~
koboll
>Take "facts" with a grain of salt, at the very least until you have read the
article. Do not take headlines as facts.

One consequence of social media is that headlines now have outsized importance
in relation to the substance of actual articles.

Headlines, thanks to links and embedded snippets, get dispersed to 1000x more
eyeballs than the articles themselves. So when they contradict or misleadingly
oversimplify (which is often, especially since they are often written to draw
clicks) it's the headline version of the truth that wins out, while the actual
readers are left to chime in with "Hey, that's not what the article actually
said..." in the comments below, swept away in a sea of respondents who
commented only after reading the headline.

Journalistic ethics haven't caught up to this. They're still playing by the
rules of legacy media, where you can bend the truth a little to make a joke or
to draw people in. The problem is that in the digital age, that unfortunately
amounts to spreading a falsehood that usually overshadows the facts of the
piece.

------
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...](http://posturedirect.com/is-sitting-destroying-your-butt-muscles/) for
some more detail.

~~~
jondwillis
At age 28, after 14 years of pretty intense computer usage... my body is an
absolute mess. I work out, do yoga, run. Nothing completely frees me from the
pain I have mostly from sitting all day, every day for my work.

~~~
HatchedLake721
Have you seen a chiropractor?

~~~
AstralStorm
Go to an actual honest licensed massagist first. And GP, since this is not
right at all and sitting with breaks shouldn't do this. (not a doctor, but
this might be how early lumbar disk problem manifests)

~~~
jondwillis
Copied from another sub-thread. So the full backstory is that I injured my
back when I was 20, playing tennis barefoot of all things. My doctor just gave
me muscle relaxers and told me to stretch more, which I of course did not do.
Since then, I have re-injured my lower back three or four times, doing
deadlifts and squats (incorrectly, I guess, not through lack of trying
though.) Since my last injury, I have lowered weight, focused on form even
more, and started doing Yoga for better core strength and flexibility. It is
slowly helping and I haven't re-injured myself for over a year. I think I have
just severely damaged my spine and I should probably go see a good doctor,
chiropractor, or licensed massage therapist like some other comments have
suggested. To quote episode 7 of HBO's hit limited series, "Sharp Objects",
"Your health is not a debt you just cancel. The body collects."

------
peaktechisnow
Sample size: 15 people.

