Watching Less TV Could Cut Heart Disease, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 36
More than one in 10 cases of coronary heart disease could be prevented if people reduced their TV viewing to less than an hour a day, research suggests. From a report: Coronary heart disease occurs when fatty material builds up inside the coronary arteries causing them to narrow, reducing the heart's blood supply. Researchers say cutting down on time spent in front of the TV could lower the risk of developing the disease. "Reducing time spent watching TV should be recognised as a key behavioural target for prevention of coronary heart disease, irrespective of genetic susceptibility and traditional risk markers," said Dr Youngwon Kim, an assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong and an author of the research.
While the team did not look at what was behind the association, Kim said previous studies had found excessive TV viewing time is associated with adverse levels of cholesterol and glucose in the body. "Unfavourable levels of these cardiometabolic risk markers may then lead to increased risk of developing coronary heart disease," he said. Writing in the journal BMC Medicine, Kim and colleagues report how they used data from 373,026 white British people aged 40-69 who were part of an endeavour known as the UK Biobank study.
While the team did not look at what was behind the association, Kim said previous studies had found excessive TV viewing time is associated with adverse levels of cholesterol and glucose in the body. "Unfavourable levels of these cardiometabolic risk markers may then lead to increased risk of developing coronary heart disease," he said. Writing in the journal BMC Medicine, Kim and colleagues report how they used data from 373,026 white British people aged 40-69 who were part of an endeavour known as the UK Biobank study.
Re: (Score:1)
I have a theory that many former religious nuts that tormented many of us through the eighties and nineties, are now with the WOKE cult. I've seen a few examples of this, but never looked further since most WOKE lunatics are millennials.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the religious nutjobs are now the conspiracy nutjobs. If you believe one bullshit story, you may as well believe any.
Re:Heart disease? (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet somehow every racist dimwit I've ever known going through a mid-life crisis spams me with the same handful of anecdotal examples from social media, most of which look like people like them trying and failing to be funny.
Re: Heart disease? (Score:1)
I know many who are woke, they turn into pumpkins when they reach the tender age of 29
Re: (Score:2)
I have met just 1 such snowflake. In a university, but I've heard of a few more in town terrorizing people with their potential attack... But I've met far more worse who did more harm but nobody was more anger inducing and deserving of a beat down than that woke person. These toxic freaks leave such an impression they must be expert Russian plants designed to help Putin by reverse psychology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
small difference (Score:5, Informative)
An 11% change with adjustments on multiple factors (each with its own margin of error that needs to be carried forward) is such a small difference as to be indistinguishable from noise. At best it's an indication of an area worthy of further research.
Re:small difference (Score:5, Informative)
At best it's an indication of an area worthy of further research.
Yes, they need to study other activities that involve lengthy sitting, like reading or sitting in places other than in front of a TV ...
Re:small difference (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, they need to study other activities that involve lengthy sitting, like reading or sitting in places other than in front of a TV ...
... like on a desk at work, or on the bench of a church praying. But don't expect as much publicity for findings about those activities.
brilliant research (Score:3)
>"More than one in 10 cases of coronary heart disease could be prevented if people reduced their TV viewing "
Correlation is not causation.
If you, instead, sit in a chair not moving much for hours reading a book, or meditating, or doing a crossword puzzle, or listening to music or a lecture, or whatever, it will probably be the same result. But let's blame TV.
>"While the team did not look at what was behind the association"
Like that is news.
>"report how they used data from 373,026 white British people"
Oh, I am sure that amount of skin melanin really matters and is super relevant.
Re: (Score:3)
or maybe people could even increase their TV or other idle time if they got off their ass and exercised for 30 minutes each day too? And maybe, I don't know, quit stuffing their faces with high sugar high starch foods?
just guessing but I'm suspecting a "lazy overweight couch potato" problem here.
Re: (Score:2)
or maybe people could even increase their TV or other idle time if they got off their ass and exercised for 30 minutes each day too?
I blame TV remotes. I actually remember when one had to get up and walk to the TV to change the channel -- using a knob -- to one of three VHF channels: ABC, CBS and NBC and one UHF channel: PBS. Even our first cable box had a knob.
Re: (Score:2)
If you, instead, sit in a chair not moving much for hours reading a book, or meditating, or doing a crossword puzzle, or listening to music or a lecture, or whatever, it will probably be the same result. But let's blame TV.
Reading or meditating are more active, whereas TV is just passive consumption. The question to ask is whether the passive/active thing makes a difference. Does it? You jumped to the conclusion (rather indignantly) that it doesn't.
Don't jump to conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Reading or meditating are more active, whereas TV is just passive consumption."
Reading or meditating are not necessarily more "active" mentally than watching TV and certainly not more physically active. Otherwise, mentally, I would posit that it depends on what one is watching. Most of my TV time is watching science and history shows and I am thinking a lot about what I am watching.... perhaps as much as if I were reading, certainly more than if I was just listening to music or meditating.
>"Don't
Re: (Score:2)
> "Don't jump to conclusions."
Maybe I shouldn't
No, you shouldn't. There's no maybe. That's why we have science.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why we have science.
lol. The findings in this article aren't science.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Reading or meditating are more active, whereas TV is just passive consumption."
Reading or meditating are not necessarily more "active" mentally than watching TV and certainly not more physically active.
Wrong. Deep breathing during traditional meditation, can work wonders for the body. Proper oxygenation is something most don't focus enough on. Those who try meditation, often find many benefits to continue it. And it's been around for thousands of years for reasons beyond mere tradition.
It also depends on how you define meditation. I burn 300 calories on average simply stretching during my hour-long session. Perhaps not a traditional "meditation", but is certainly considered meditative to me by compa
Re: (Score:2)
>"More than one in 10 cases of coronary heart disease could be prevented if people reduced their TV viewing "
Correlation is not causation.
If you, instead, sit in a chair not moving much for hours reading a book, or meditating, or doing a crossword puzzle, or listening to music or a lecture, or whatever, it will probably be the same result. But let's blame TV.
While I agree with your assertion, I imagine they're simply looking at TV time as unnecessary idle/lengthy sitting time that could be easily reduced. As you noted, I also think that's too simplistic as people may find another activity, like reading, that also involves lengthy sitting -- which they apparently didn't include in the study (though they did include time using a computer). The study is based on people's recollections of time spent sitting and TV watching is their easily remembered low-hanging f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The study was just that, a study. It likely isn't a big one, just one to see if there's any sort of relation at all other than what you think.
There are numerous issues, including relying on self-reporting - they discovered sitting in front of the computer had no relation, for example. But they couldn't report if it was a reporting error - you remember when you sit in front of the TV more than in front of the computer, for example.
And they couldn't tell you a reason for it, so it's at best, speculation. It c
Seems like the usual scare story. (Score:2)
At a guess here any sedentary where you are sitting down and not doing much for a couple hours at a time will all generate the same health problems. Does anyone think watching TV is going to have different health problems from reading a book, playing a video game or just lying down for extra rest?
Will never work (Score:2)
Americans would rather pay exhorbitant costs for medicines rather than do one simple thing to improve their health.
Change my mind.
Define TV here. (Score:2)
I'd suggest you make a clear definition of what "TV" is in this argument. Otherwise, I can already hear the excuses coming from a billion smartphone addicts claiming not-me status.
Preach it! (Score:2)
I cut the cord a long time ago, TV is dead.
If everyone went over to streaming services, we can certainly eliminate heart diseases.
TV or sitting? (Score:2)
Is it TV? Is it sitting? Is it both? Does it matter what you watch?
The thing with studies such as this is that the results are so averaged as to have the resolution of a 4x4 pixel image of a murder suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
its mostly sitting and the habits that go along with turning your mind off (eating, drinking), I mean you could be watching extreme sports on a phone, but if your sitting laid back on your ass for 4 hours consuming beer and Cheeto's the entire time, its not TV's fault.
People still watch TV? (Score:2)
Maybe correlation does not equal causation.
Misleading... can't be just TV. (Score:1)
It's probably every sedentary activity.
Sitting and playing video games, sitting and playing board games, sitting and knitting, note the common factor is sitting a lot- not the activity.
I admit I haven't perused the study yet but there is nothing unique to TV compared to the other activities I mentioned (and many other sedentary activities).
Not really news yet (Score:2)
It's not just black and white (Score:2)
It matters a lot on how you're watching TV. The worst case is sitting in a chair. Somewhat better is sitting on a couch. The best case is laying comfortably on a couch with your legs and feet raised. However, you have to take at least a one hour hike every day. It's so healthy to just walk briskly for an hour or so, especially if you can incorporate some stairs or climbing.
TV? (Score:2)