Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

Sitting Too Much Ages You By 8 Years (time.com) 147

Sitting too much during the day has been linked to a host of diseases, from obesity to heart problems and diabetes, as well as early death. It's not hard to understand why: being inactive can contribute to weight gain, which in turn is a risk factor for heart attack, stroke, hypertension and unhealthy blood sugar levels. On top of everything else, sitting has detrimental effects on cells at the biological level, according to a new report published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. From a report on Time: In the new study, scientists led by Aladdin Shadyab, a post-doctoral fellow in family medicine and public health at the University of California San Diego, traced sitting's impact on the chromosomes. They took blood samples from nearly 1,500 older women enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative, a long-term study of chronic diseases in post-menopausal women, and focused on the telomeres: the tips of the tightly packed DNA in every cell. Previous studies have found that as cells divide and age, they lose bits of the telomeres, so the length of this region can be a marker for how old a cell (and indirectly the person the cells belong to) is. The researchers compared telomere length to how much the women exercised, to see if physical activity affected aging.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sitting Too Much Ages You By 8 Years

Comments Filter:
  • by hcs_$reboot ( 1536101 ) on Thursday January 19, 2017 @10:05AM (#53695765)
    doing some exercise daily increases your life expectancy by 8 years.
    • Too bad the study is bullshit because it's based on the WHI (Women's Health Initiative), a study that had huge design and implementation flaws and bad data analysis.

      The WHI claimed to study the effects of hormone replacement therapy on women. However, rather than using bio-identical human hormones, they used Premarin and Prempro (the PREgnant MARe unINe). Hint - human estrogen is not bio-identical to horse estrogen, so we're already off to a bad start. Also, at the time Premarin was approved, the 50+ impu

      • by Opyros ( 1153335 )

        Menopause is not normal

        OTOH, this experiment [theatlantic.com] shows how menopause could be adaptive.

        • Unfortunately, the "grandmother hypothesis" has holes. However, we do know that human menopause is (very) slowly starting at a later age. If we survive another 100,000 years or more, it won't exist. After all, any need for menopause to direct resources at the next generation is gone thanks to birth control, so only the religious will end up getting old and barren and dying of complications from osteoporosis.
    • Having 8 more years of life to spend exercising doesn't seem so great.

  • >Sitting Too Much Ages You By 8 Years

    Crap! That means that I could have retired 8 years ago, better notify the tax offices.

  • Some things are common sense. Most of us would agree we feel better if we get a bit of exercise, and that remaining in the same position for hours makes us feel like crap... excluding a good night's sleep.

    Beware of the autoplayer, and beware of things that begin with Studies have shown... and then attempt to ascribe a definitive value like eight years off your life.

    • by Wargames ( 91725 )

      Not to mention that sitting and exercise are not necessarily independent variables. For example: I spend many hours sitting on a bicycle training for my next Ironman.

    • Also sitting long hours affects other decisions we make, if we feel stale we might want some pizza to lift up our mood, vs. wanting/needing something more wholesome after a day of being active.

    • There are a lot of factors I think are going on.
      If you spend a lot of time sitting.
      You are often working a higher stress job - Could stress Age you?
      Lack of exercise reduces muscle tone - That could age you?
      If someone sits too much they may have a medical problem that prevents them from being fully mobile - Could age you? ...

      When you boil down statics into a single number such a percentage or years off your life. You take out all the complexities in life and give a meaningless answer.

  • Work and cars (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OffTheLip ( 636691 ) on Thursday January 19, 2017 @10:14AM (#53695815)
    For many sitting starts in a car during a long commute to/from work followed by sitting for another 8+ hours. When I was faced with that I would spend a portion of my lunch break walking around my work site.
    • by hattig ( 47930 )

      TBH pretty much the only exercise I get is the walk to and from the train station for work (at both ends). Which luckily probably totals over three miles a day, and it's an enforced routine.

      Problem is, work has recently started an aggressive Working from Home culture (well, 2 or 3 days a week). Guess how much I walk on those days... sure, I eat better, but that's about it. "Bed -> Desk (via Kitchen for coffee/lunch/dinner) -> Sofa -> Bed" isn't the greatest daily routine. Saves a decent amount of t

    • by pr100 ( 653298 )

      Maybe, but we all have choices to make. Setting up your life so that you have a long car commute is within your control. We have to balance that against other considerations affecting choices about jobs and homes.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19, 2017 @10:17AM (#53695833)

    From the article they found that women who had shorter telomeres, or were biologically older, moved less. Not in the past but during the week they were studied.

    For some reason they think this means that moving less shortens the telomeres when the other way is obviously likely.
    Being older causes people to exercise less, just wouldn't make a good headline.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Shorter compared to the expected length at that age. Shorter compared to women who did not do so much sitting.

      • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        But it is at least as likely that having shorter telomeres predisposes you to be less active, choosing to sit more than other people. In fact, I would argue that genes affecting behavior is far more likely than behavior affecting genes. Without a truly randomized study with a control group, I don't see how you can convincingly prove causation.

  • by fortfive ( 1582005 ) on Thursday January 19, 2017 @10:20AM (#53695845)

    As opposed to the 'mineral' level, maybe?

  • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Thursday January 19, 2017 @10:27AM (#53695883)

    My commute time equated to over 2 hours a day. At one point in my career, I was able to offer up a great trade-off to work remotely. In exchange for getting an additional hour of work from me every day, I spent the other hour exercising. A win-win for both parties involved.

    Sadly, I now deal with a boss who is so old-fashioned that the concept of working remotely isn't even an option, even when enticed with the benefit of getting an additional 20 - 40 hours more work out of me every month. Very frustrating, considering my job can easily be done remotely.

    Cities dealing with more and more pollution. Commute times grow due to overpopulation. Stress and physical impacts of sitting in a car. I grow tired of the bullshit arguments against remote work. Managers and business owners need to wake the fuck up.

    • Well then. This is obviously a pain point. Find some solutions to measure productivity that aren't too intrusive? Perhaps a dedicated space with a web cam. The more this bothers you the more you need to come up with a solution. Yes.

      You need to do something.
      Are you waiting for me?
      Nah. I've got other things to do. I have a short commute and after a few mths working at home I hated working.

      Stop bitching and create something. You may actually get recognition and some green from your ideas.
      • ...Stop bitching and create something. You may actually get recognition and some green from your ideas.

        - All the environmental impact I've already cited.

        - The direct financial benefit of companies not having to pay for expensive corporate real estate to literally warehouse humans for 8+ hours a day.

        - The direct efficiency benefit of gaining an additional 20 - 40 hours of work per month per salaried employee.

        - The measured financial benefit of a healthier workforce due to removing the negative impact of commuting that contributes to increased stress and reduced efficiency.

        The benefits are as fucking obvio

        • Stop bitching and create something.

          the "productivity" that is measured these days is seeing how many jobs you can make a single employee do before they reach the breaking point and quit.

          I think that might have been GLMDesigns' point. By dismissing these measurable benefits, your boss is constructively dismissing you [wikipedia.org]. Take this as an opportunity to stop complaining about your boss and instead be your own boss, working as a contractor instead of an employee.

          • Stop bitching and create something.

            the "productivity" that is measured these days is seeing how many jobs you can make a single employee do before they reach the breaking point and quit.

            I think that might have been GLMDesigns' point. By dismissing these measurable benefits, your boss is constructively dismissing you [wikipedia.org]. Take this as an opportunity to stop complaining about your boss and instead be your own boss, working as a contractor instead of an employee.

            Sound point.

            Perhaps I'll quit my job to become a writer, penning a graphic novel about the impacts of commuting and the stupidity that forces it upon humans.

            • The point was more than that - you need to come up with a plan for the employer. (And all employers who are in this boat.)

              You need to address their concerns (legitimate or not) and show how your plan will help them accomplish their goals.

              The point, in essence, was stop bitching and do something about - AND YOU are the person that must do the doing. YOU are the person who is outraged by this. Not your manager, not me and not many others.

              I tried working at home and after a while I hated it. You wan
    • by swb ( 14022 ) on Thursday January 19, 2017 @11:54AM (#53696401)

      You're fighting the cultural expectations of management and power, and likely at the root, primate dominance.

      Your boss assumes that being boss requires some level of physical control of you, and that means controlling your locality to reinforce his perception of dominance and control over you.

      It goes a long way towards explaining why incompetent employees who show up and don't evidence much insubordination are tolerated so well.

      • You're fighting the cultural expectations of management and power, and likely at the root, primate dominance.

        I've heard a lot of justifications behind the infamous killer of remote work (Marissa Mayer), but primate dominance is a new one. Thanks for the laugh.

        • by swb ( 14022 ) on Thursday January 19, 2017 @01:33PM (#53697171)

          It's not really meant as a joke. For a lot of managers, at its core, managing is about being in charge, and being in charge is about dominance.

          And it ultimately looks like innate primate behavior. They're achieved status in the troop and they need to dominate the other members or they fear they will lose their dominance.

          • by sjames ( 1099 )

            It should surprise nobody that a manager's frontal lobe wouldn't be up to the task of modifying primate instincts. That is, the boss is a chimp.

          • It's not really meant as a joke. For a lot of managers, at its core, managing is about being in charge, and being in charge is about dominance.

            And it ultimately looks like innate primate behavior. They're achieved status in the troop and they need to dominate the other members or they fear they will lose their dominance.

            Your feedback reads like the tag in front of the gorilla cage at the zoo. Again, thanks for the laugh as I question what species we're talking about here.

            I've dealt with many a leadership structure over the last 25 years. What I've learned from the best of them is respect goes a long way, and I still address my subordinates as "Sir" or "Ma'am" out of respect for my fellow human.

            Arrogance feeding some kind of fucking primal urge to be an asshole of a boss is akin to excusing the wife beater because "testo

            • by swb ( 14022 )

              Clearly humans, possessing more developed language and sophisticated intellectual capabilities, have been able to develop more sophisticated social organizations than other primates.

              But it doesn't stop them from displaying regressive behavior that shows pretty clearly while we've branched off into a new species we still carry a lot of primal instincts from our ancestors.

              • Clearly humans, possessing more developed language and sophisticated intellectual capabilities, have been able to develop more sophisticated social organizations than other primates.

                But it doesn't stop them from displaying regressive behavior that shows pretty clearly while we've branched off into a new species we still carry a lot of primal instincts from our ancestors.

                *Darwin peers into the boardroom window*

                "Yup. Fucking nailed it."

    • by hattig ( 47930 )

      I think an expectation of remote work ability (at least after a couple of months or so of joining) should be an expectation for anyone looking to move company these days. Especially if you have children it gives you the necessary flexibility to cope with the situation. For most it would be 2 or 3 times a week, face to face time may still be important/necessary for some to retain humanity .

      The last thing I would want to do is sit in a car in a traffic jam daily. Luckily I've avoided that throughout my career

    • UberPool?
  • by TimothyHollins ( 4720957 ) on Thursday January 19, 2017 @10:42AM (#53696003)

    It doesn't appear to be sitting that's being tested here, but rather inactivity. These two things are not the same (one can be inactive without sitting) though they frequently occur together.

    • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

      Sitting in one position is worse than standing in one position. So yes, there's a difference in the type of inactivity.

  • And jogging and bicycling increases your chances to get fatally hit by an automobile, train or plane.
    • And jogging and bicycling increases your chances to get fatally hit by an automobile, train or plane.

      I wondered about that a while back, so I did some investigation into the odds. It turned out that the risk of riding a bike is in the same ballpark as riding in a car when measured on a per-hour basis.

      While the risks aren't insignificant, they turned out to be clearly better than the risk of being out of shape and keeling over prematurely from a heart attack or similar problem.

      I do avoid some of the things that probably skew the cycling risk numbers higher, such as riding at night, or riding on hilly countr

  • Too late. I died ten years ago from smoking. LOL!
  • This is a prime example of researchers with easy grant money coming to obvious conclusions. No shit sitting too long is detrimental to ones health, so is anything else in excess! We didn't need extensive research to determine this result as well.
  • Social gender values (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Thursday January 19, 2017 @11:51AM (#53696387)

    Why did they just study women?
    It seems like anything that affects women gets attention, while society doesn't even value men.
    Another prime example is the massive amount of attention and funding that breast cancer gets compared to prostate cancer, even though 1 in 7 men get prostate cancer while 1 in 8 women get breast cancer.

    • Why did they study just women? Hint - they couldn't find any post-menopausal men. They started with old, flawed test data from the WHI menopause study and came to new, flawed confusions ... oops, I mean conclusions ... or do I?

      Also, even if you get prostate cancer, it's usually so slow that something else will kill you first.

      Besides, most of the men doing the studies would rather look at boobs than fingering your prostate.

      • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

        Gee who knew that sitting too much is only something that affects post-menopausual women?

        And since Prostate cancer USUALLY doesn't actually kill you quickly, then men should just suck it up and keep donating to Susan G Komen instead?

        Yeah thanks for being part of the problem and further reinforcing the stereotype by just laughing it off with a boob joke. I didn't expect that from you of all people.

        • Men are the ones who are deciding NOT to treat prostate cancer [nytimes.com]. They don't want to go through life wearing a diaper because of incontinence caused by surgery for something that can be left untreated because, as I pointed out, it won't be what kills them in the end. Or hormone therapy that means they have to go around in summer wearing bulky jackets to hide their new man-boobs. Or, for younger men, permanent impotence.

          So no, I'm not furthering any stereotype, you jerk. I'm well aware of the problems they g

          • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

            >> Men are the ones who are deciding NOT to treat prostate cancer.
            Thats not what the article says at all. Did you even read it?
            It actually says "More Men With Early Prostate Cancer Are Choosing to Avoid Treatment".

            >> So no, I'm not furthering any stereotype, you jerk.

            Yes you absolutely are. Jerk yourself.

            • Late treatment is futile in most cases, and they know that when they get older, it's just not worth it. Canada's former prime minister Pierre Trudeau decided to refuse all treatment and live a full life until it killed him, rather than put up with the side effects of treatment that is ultimately futile.
              • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

                >> rather than put up with the side effects of CURRENTLY AVAILABLE treatment that is ultimately futile, BECAUSE NO_ONE IS TAKING FUNDING IT AS SERIOUSLY AS BREAST CANCER JUST BECAUSE VAGINA, EVEN THOUGH BREAST CANCER IS ALREADY A FAR MORE BEATEN PROBLEM.

                http://healthydebate.ca/person... [healthydebate.ca]

                There fixed it for ya.

                • Many cancers cannot be even remotely considered as routinely curable. Prostate cancer happens to be one of them. If you're worried, we have a simple, effective treatment that can help reduce the risk of happening in the first place - just pop a daily dose of Avodart and Androcur. Problem solved.
                  • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

                    >> Many cancers cannot be even remotely considered as routinely curable. Prostate cancer happens to be one of them.

                    Breast cancer also used to not be even remotely considered as routine curable, yet now it is, thanks to the billions that people donate to it. This is EXACTLY why prostate cancer does need more attention and research money.

                    • So then give money if you think it should be supported. Organize a fund raiser. Do some awareness campaigns. You know, the same as women did for breast cancer.

                      Or if you want to talk prevention instead of cure, take 50 mg of Avodart and 50-100 mg Androcur. You're probably going to have to take them anyway if you get prostate cancer. Consider it no different from women with the HBRC1 and HBRC2 genes getting preventative mastectomies, even though breast cancer is treatable - they prefer prevention to the chem

          • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

            So no, I'm not furthering any stereotype, you jerk.

            So who wrote this [slashdot.org]....your evil twin?

            Besides, most of the men doing the studies would rather look at boobs than fingering your prostate.

            Then you go on to rattle off some of the side effects of traditional prostate cancer treatments - not exactly making the case for why breast cancer research gets so much more money, despite people dying in comparable numbers for both types of cancers.

            Doctors are the ones who are deciding NOT to treat prostate cancer

            FTFY

            • Studies have shown that men spend more time looking at women's breasts than any other body part. It's not a stereotype (a generalization that is at its' base false) when it's a fact.
              • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

                Your complete non-response, and doubling down on a stereotype that has nothing to do with medicine - is hereby noted.

                • Saying something is true based on facts is not a non-response, asswipe [time.com].

                  Aptly titled “My eyes are up here,” lead researcher Sarah Gervais’ study found that men like looking at women’s large breasts. For extended periods of time. Although, in dudes’ defense, “women also seem to view other women as objects.”

                  A total of 29 women and 36 men outfitted in eye tracking gear were asked to look at pictures of models manipulated to have different body types. Both men and women looked at breasts and waists longer than faces. Furthermore, women with hourglass figures received more substantial stares and were rated as having better personalities. Because boobs.

                  But if you were a woman you'd already know this because you would have experienced it first hand. And please note - the lead researcher was a woman.

                  • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

                    Your continued hand waving, non-responses and doubling down on sexist stereotypes is also noted. You can stop prattling on about your study when the subject is medical doctors and cancer research. Really, feel free to stop beating that horse at any time, it's quite dead.

                    • Since the subject is medical doctors and cancer research, you should know that studies show you'll probably live longer if your doctor is a woman. And that male doctors have been proven to discriminate against female patients in terms of pain management, not taking their complaints as seriously (and pain management is part of cancer treatment, and the biases are there in the research as well, big time. For example, early breast cancer studies excluded women because "women have too many variables to make goo
    • Why did they just study women?
      It seems like anything that affects women gets attention, while society doesn't even value men.

      While I'm not familiar with this particular study and can't explain why the researchers chose to focus on women exclusively, I'd like to call your attention to this exerpt from a Guardian article from 2015 [theguardian.com]:

      For several reasons, female subjects have historically been excluded from toxicology or biomedical research, says Tamarra James-Todd, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School. While progress has been made since 1993, when the National Institutes of Health mandated that women and minorities be included in any government-funded health research, there’s still a long way to go.

      Indeed, this trend of including females in studies at all is relatively recent, and females are still underrepresented in study populations in general to this day. Please consider that your perception of an unreasonable focus on women when it comes to medical research seems at odds with the empirical data

    • What do you say about a society that spends more money on viagra subsidies and on brain research? Soon, we will have nursing homes full of honey old men with no idea of what to do?
      • What do you say about a society that spends more money on Viagra subsidies than on brain research? Soon, we will have nursing homes full of honey old men with no idea of what to do?
  • In Europe they use weight-loss medication that has proven fairly effective and safe. But for some reason doctors in the US are discouraged from prescribing them.

    I asked my own doctor about them, and got a lectury response something like "patients should just learn to exercise more and eat better instead." Yeah, we know that already.

    Ironically, the doctor is also overweight. It's NOT working, doc!

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      American Medicine enjoys the punitive Puritan approach. That's why we get so much bogus dietary advice that leads to eating unsatisfying food that tastes like sweetened cardboard in spite of research suggesting that your Grandma's (or Great Grandma's by now) dietary advice works much better and tastes orders of magnitude better.

    • In Europe they use weight-loss medication that has proven fairly effective and safe.

      What sort of weight loss medicine are you referring to here? I'm interested.

Today is the first day of the rest of your lossage.

Working...