I walk 10 mins every 1 to 2 hours and use that time to review.
I try to find ways to solve problems in ways that are more fun, easier, and effective.
So to me a 10 min break is a work requirement.
Solving a stressful problem and not reducing the stress first is wrong.
It isn't just something I do for my health, it is the way people are supposed to work because it produces much better solutions.
After 50 mins working on something very difficult my mind gets so mucked up.
Often I discover a simpler solution during the break and end up getting my work done much faster.
Sometimes stress can peak and when that happens I just take a nap until it dissipates. Usually just 30 mins but there are times when it can take an hour or more. Again, I view the nap as doing work because often I wake up with a simpler solution that also has much less stress. If I can't find one, then I escalate the issue. Again, it isn't my job to absorb stress to the point where it degrades my effectiveness.
Please note, I don't work on production system being used by 100s of millions of users. I've done it; it was fun; it is not possible to reduce stress in that work so it is not worth the effort. I now make 2x as much and have almost no stress.
Here I thought I was the only one. Thanks for sharing. I find work to be pretty stress-inducing for some obscure psychological reasons; taking an occasional nap to reboot the stress meter is a solution my body arrived at.
I am suddenly reminded of my college classes that were 50 mins on the dot, with 10 mins in between as travel time to get to the next class.
Ah, the old Walk-n-Talk meeting style.
If I could get Alan Sorkin's endorsement I'd sell it as a work out routine and make millions.
Doing a bit of low-key mindfulness and slowing my breathing has been very helpful as well.
They break the test subjects into four groups ranked by activity level, and compare the the highest activity group to the rest. But in the results, only the lowest activity group has a hazard ratio where the 95% confidence interval does not contain 1. Translation: the data only shows a meaningful difference in mortality risk between the highest and lowest activity groups. For the other two groups, the data does not support show an increased risk.
I would think that people being in an end of life state at the beginning of the study would tend to be more likely to be tired and avoid exercise.
It could well be that early undiagnosed terminal illness causes people to be sedentary and not the other way around.
The most sedentary people may also be the most obese, the most likely to suffer from diabetes, the most burdened with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, etc. Their expected lifespans will thus be quite shorter.
I'm willing to believe that appropriate exercise is good for you, almost no matter how robust or frail your health is. But this would be a much better study if it tracked cohorts with roughly parallel starting health. That way, the degree of active-vs.-sedentary living could be a study variable that wasn't tainted by undocumented variations in starting health status.
Everything from obesity (cause of inactivity and shared causes with inactivity) to rarer mortality risks like cancer would simultaneously act to create this result even with no causative linkage.
It seems like a new version of that infamous NEJM study showing that low and healthy weights have especially high mortality - because terminally ill patients tend to lose a lot of weight.
My main thingy with studies like these is that actuarial bookkeeping is hard. The difference in base mortality rate between a few age years in difference can be huge. But since the study runs 4, that difference in base rate multiplies. Properly accounting for that is hard.
that being said, obesity correlates positively with inactivity. being less sedentary is a huge goal of mine to improve my health, pvalues or not
However the hazard ratio is monotonously increasing across activity groups in the direction one would expect if there is an effect. So the data does indeed show a (meaningful) rise in risk going lower on the activity ladder, only it is not statistically significant.
A continuous model might get more (statistical) traction here. They've got the data. Why use segments?
Get up, go get a drink, do a lap around the office. Get a stand/sit desk. Do some simple exercises. Pushups can be done anywhere, and will alleviate lower back pain.
1. Waking up early and reading something significant with my morning coffee. Usually something on philosophy or theology. Not looking at any screens until I'm at work.
2. Working out for an hour each day. It's like a switch: once I work out regularly, everything else falls into place. I eat better (because I don't want to lose the benefits of the 1 hour workout I just put in). I sleep better (because I have to be up early to workout).
Working out daily truly is one of the best habits I've ever picked up.
I think the other component we'll see questioned more and more over the coming years is the general questioning around homeostasis. I recently finished Scott Carney's: "What Doesn’t Kill Us: How Freezing Water, Extreme Altitude and Environmental Conditioning Will Renew Our Lost Evolutionary Strength" and it was a great read. While the main premise of the book is Scott's initial mission to debunk the Wim Hof Method he delves into a lot of newer research and training that is centered around building up our bodies beyond traditional exercise.
Recently I read through comments on HN when the Bay area hit record highs and how people were cautioning of all of the bad things that would happen if one didn't seek A/C. It really hit home how many people are not acclimated, at all, to any level of extreme that other portions of the planet and people deal with on a daily basis. Just as we're sedentary, we're also not as capable to environmental adaptation - and I'll speculate this isn't good for us long term either. I've moved to 5+ minutes per shower of full cold and stopped using A/C in my vehicle, and more sparingly in my home. If you've never done the cold showers as a test to see what you're body is truly capable of - do it. It's amazing how you adapt in a short period of time. Also the clarity and anxiety reduction it brings to either the start or the end of the day is an understatement. Try it, it's cheap and takes no additional time out of your day if you're already showering anyway.
Knowing what will and won't hurt you is important though. Something as simple as hydration is a lost skill in dealing with heat. I would wager many have forgotten how to walk more than short distances. You can totally walk 2km, unless you have mobility issues.
Not to take away from those with genuine mobility issues of course, but I also note that many are quick to find an ailment to define them and through that can really cheat themselves out of great experiences, assuming they aren't capable when really they are.
I am glad we are getting smarter about this kind of thing though, and the ever prolonged age of retirement is probably going to do a few favours in keeping many active and healthy. When my grandfather finally retired from the farm it was just a couple of years before his mind and body had withered away.
"(high sedentary time [≥12.5 h/d] and high bout duration [≥10 min/bout]) had the greatest risk for death."
I don't think I know anyone who is active on < 10 minute intervals.
It's hard to be the first one to do this. I've been in some places where it would get you funny looks, some where it would get you marked as lazy (somewhat paradoxically), and some where it's encouraged.
I like to do a decent swim on my lunch breaks (1250 meters these days). It was a good sign when my boss asked about how to join the same gym instead of wondering what I was gone for 50 minutes.
We've made such great technological leaps that we've afforded ourselves hours to sit on pillows and watch screens and use hydrogenated fat to stave off hunger and boredom.
EDIT: Found the thread. It was actually about the Unabomber. Go figure: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15145849
- At work, a few coworkers saw me jumping and now it's something we do every afternoon as a way to break the day up and get some fresh air.
- In parking lots, people walking by me will usually compliment me and sometimes that turns into a nice conversation.
So after a few good experiences with it, all of my social anxiety about it melted away.
Put another way, it's not rational to ignore how you think you will respond to social pressure just because you think you shouldn't respond that way to the pressure. The human mind is not so simple as that.
Think about it: if you were at Costco and saw some random person jumping rope by a car, what would you think of that person? Would it be anything bad?
That said, I'm encouraged by the positive responses you say you've gotten. Maybe I'll give this a try.
Or just park in the way way back.
Is sleep included in the 12.5 hours per day?
Even if it isn't, I and everyone I know sits for at least that long each day. Definitely for more than 10 minutes at a time. If we need to interrupt our sitting bouts every 7.5 minutes in order to be healthy, I don't know how the hell to do this.
I really despise smart watches, I turn off blue tooth and everything, but the Fenix 3/5 is my companion in my fitness journey. I follow the move indicator. When my watch buzzes, I move for 5 minutes in a way I just described and drink some water. It is annoying, but if you make it meditative and keep your task at hand in mind I have found, with practice, and this being something you always do, it does not disrupt flow state. Flow isn't like meditation, you can literally do this right in front of your monitor and keep thinking about your code or deep work task while you do it.
Is sitting for prolonged periods bad? Yes. Should you get up every 7.5 minutes to walk around? Probably over kill.
If you're the type that goes into work, sits until lunch, then walks to the lunch table, then returns to your desk until closing time - you could probably benefit from more moving.
My hope is that this study will encourage more work places to adopt standing desks, different working environments, and encourage activity through out the day.
I don't do this myself, but I think folks that can manage to slow walk at a tread desk are going to be the best and gaining back those years static positions shave.
Yes, standing causes people to move around more, but I actually find standing dramatically more tiring than tread-desking when I have tried it. I prefer sitting and regular movement from the sitting position, tread desking, and finally standing desks.
Personally, standing is also just not comfortable. I have run 50 mile races, and lift heavy things regularly for many years, so I have the physical conditioning for it... I just find it is the most draining way to work. It feels much harder on my body than walking all day or sitting and moving around at regular intervals.
It would also be nice to have a longer standard lunch period. I would love to be able to work out and eat in the middle of my day, but 30 mins just isn't enough.
I don't worry too much about how other busybodies tell me I should live my life.
That was the sugar industry.
You would expect that many of the 340 subjects who died might have died, rather than accidentally, due to some progressively deteriorating condition which reduced their movement for a substantial period of time; perhaps years.
We don't know whether the onset of death produced less mobility or vice versa.
A relationship between sedentary lifestyle and mortality requires a very long term study. Like following large number s of people from age 18 (if not earlier) onward, and correlating levels of physical activity with life span.
Most of my day involves me sitting in front of a computer: Programming and designing during the day and gaming at night.
My department has a ton of people who use standing desks, but I never saw the need.
After reading through this thread and thinking about how much sitting I do on a daily basis, I'm more likely to now to ask my company for a standing desk.
I'm hoping this will make a difference.
Standing desks are awesome for sure, but I don't get the adjustable trend when draft chairs have been around forever.
Suppose I'm sedentary 13 hours a day, and that I walk / exercise for 2 hours, does it make me sedentary with a high-mortality risk?
But, we need to know more and I feel like a 4 year tracking period isn't enough. For example, how do we know that people who were already the most unhealthy coming into this study are also the most sedentary? How are they handling these types of things.
Guys, just get up and move. 30m-40m a day, you can fit this into your daily schedule, don't come up with excuses. If you can fit your TV shows/gaming or your accumulative time on social media, you can redirect that to your health instead. And the output will have a major impact not just to your health, but to your appearance and your confidence.
Eat healthy, exercise and go to bed on time. You don't have to go to a gym, you can buy some gear and follow a plan from your home. Trust me, the change can be quite dramatic.
Before work, or after work, pick a time, have a working out plan, track your progress, create the habit. After two months it will feel like not taking a shower if you skip it.
(Unless you're being a jerk, e.g. hogging equipment)
I knew that if I didn't have a monetary consequence and someone holding me accountable, I'd never use the gym membership I paid for.
Even 30minutes walking daily makes a huge difference
Planks, push-ups, and squats of many variations require no equipment at all.
Add dip bars and a chin-up bar/rings and you're basically set.
Variations mean people who've never exercised before can start very small and work their way up to incredibly challenging routines.
For cardio, good ol' walking and running work. And if you try running, don't think you have to immediately start running continuously; interval training is a thing, and is a great way to start small and work your way up.
If you absolutely can't do the gym, you can run. You can go to yoga (another place where absolutely no one is judging you or even looking at you except the teacher).
The perfectly rational part of my brain has set up activity reminders at work for 11AM, 1PM, and 3PM, presuming that walking to/from the parking lot counts as activity. They literally just say "Get up and move." The lazy jerk part of my brain always responds, "...or don't, and just click off the reminder."
And sometimes it wins. It shouldn't ever win, but it does.
Ultimately, the problem must be that part of me doesn't want to live a long and healthy life. It would prefer to die sooner rather than later. Tracing it, it seems linked to the future prediction part of my brain, which seems to believe that the future will be worse than the present.
I can't really fault its reasoning. If I knew civilization was going to collapse next week, I'd quit my job and spend some time partying. If I knew it was going down in a month, I'd probably check out at work and party at a more sedate pace. So I think I can understand one of the reasons for the US opiate epidemic. For those people, the world as they know it is ending, so they're checking out and partying. Their job is probably gone and not coming back, and maybe no one really cares about them anymore, if anyone ever did. So they can face a long, slow, downward spiral of pain and despair, or they can jump off a cliff and make it a quick rush of euphoria, then no more pain.
Sedentary lifestyle is more of a response to a general malaise. I sometimes don't think I'll ever be able to retire. Most of the jobs I have held have absolutely sucked. And many of my ancestors were at least octagenarians. Rather than spend the next 40 years working for The Man, part of me might be whispering, "being dead is a great excuse to stop working so hard for the exclusive benefit of other people."
So essentially, I probably don't change my habits because I believe that living longer would just allow other people to use me as their pack mule for more years. I don't really want to die, but I haven't really been living for the last 20 years, either. I earn like a software pro, spend like a stingy hobo, and have nothing to show for it, not even social capital.
Why would I invest in myself without even the possibility of getting equity in return? And that's just a really difficult argument to counter. What could I do to get more enjoyment out of life, that would make me want more of it? If America has epidemics of drug addictions and obesity, what does that say about its opinion of the future? Are we all a Rat Park Experiment writ large, pushing our levers in our Skinnerboxes just because there is nothing better to do?
The world needs something new to believe in and spend money on, but I'm not charismatic enough to give it my dreams.
I may be overthinking this.
I don't particularly care if I live a long time either, but I want whatever time I have to suck less.