Sitting For More Than 30 Minutes At a Time Linked To Higher Risk of Cancer Death 88
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Researchers who tracked more than 90,000 people over a decade found that sitting or lying down while awake for more than 30 minutes in one period each day was associated with an increased risk of cancer death. The risk increases for every additional hour of continuous inactivity, the findings suggest. However, the researchers also found breaking up periods of sedentary behavior longer than 30 minutes with bursts of physical activity could help reduce the risk. Getting up every half-hour, even for a short walk around the office, could do wonders for your health, they said.
[...] The findings, published in Plos Medicine, focused on the health effects of prolonged sedentary behavior on a daily basis. [...] The team analyzed data from wearable devices worn by more than 91,000 UK Biobank participants, who were followed for an average of 12 years. The findings suggest prolonged inactivity lasting more than 30 minutes was associated with cancer risks. Each additional hour of prolonged inactivity every day was associated with a 10% increase in risk of cancer death. However, replacing long spells of inactivity with movement appeared to reduce that risk. Substituting one hour of sedentary behavior each day with light physical activity, such as ironing or washing up, was associated with a 12% lower risk of cancer death.
Replacing 30 minutes of inactivity each day with 30 minutes of moderate physical activity, such as walking at an average pace, was associated with an 8% lower risk. The risk was 22% lower when five minutes of inactivity was replaced with five minutes of vigorous physical activity each day, the study suggested. There were limitations to the research, including the fact that the researchers performed a statistical analysis of an observational study, so could not prove causation.
[...] The findings, published in Plos Medicine, focused on the health effects of prolonged sedentary behavior on a daily basis. [...] The team analyzed data from wearable devices worn by more than 91,000 UK Biobank participants, who were followed for an average of 12 years. The findings suggest prolonged inactivity lasting more than 30 minutes was associated with cancer risks. Each additional hour of prolonged inactivity every day was associated with a 10% increase in risk of cancer death. However, replacing long spells of inactivity with movement appeared to reduce that risk. Substituting one hour of sedentary behavior each day with light physical activity, such as ironing or washing up, was associated with a 12% lower risk of cancer death.
Replacing 30 minutes of inactivity each day with 30 minutes of moderate physical activity, such as walking at an average pace, was associated with an 8% lower risk. The risk was 22% lower when five minutes of inactivity was replaced with five minutes of vigorous physical activity each day, the study suggested. There were limitations to the research, including the fact that the researchers performed a statistical analysis of an observational study, so could not prove causation.
wait, what? (Score:5, Interesting)
What control group did they use, and where did they find people to study that don't sleep at night?
Re: (Score:3)
TFA gave me cancer.
Re:wait, what? (Score:5, Funny)
Nice trick, I spent 31 minutes looking for the control group.
Re: (Score:2)
The more pertinent question then is how do we spin this into *finally* having a valid justification for having all those "power naps" in the office?
Re: wait, what? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this is what I always worry about when I see studies like this. I know they always try to control for confounders, but it's really hard to do right. If you mess up, you get another "Regular wine drinking improves your health!" craze (wine consumption is correlated with wealth and better access to healthcare, and also, people with serious health problems often have to give up drinking)
11+ hours for the win (Score:3)
> Each additional hour of prolonged inactivity every day was associated with a 10% increase in risk of cancer death
Cancer, please kill me quickly.
Re: (Score:3)
kill me quickly.
i don't really know how to put this ... but it's not good news.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm, looks like its time to take up Drinking and Smoking, and maybe time to start and asbestos removal business.
https://mdrc.co.in/fastest-kil... [mdrc.co.in]
Re: (Score:3)
Patient: How long have I got?
Doctor: Thirty
Patient: Thirty what? Months? Days?
Doctor: 29:50...
Standing Desks (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, I am still very lucky to work at home and take many small trips to the kitchen to make a cup of coffee, to the garden to water plants, and more. Should I be forced back into an office (not unlikely), a standing desk would be the first thing I'd acquire.
Re: (Score:2)
... not so that I can stand for 8 hours instead of sit, but so that I can switch between the two frequently. ...
This is what I do too, and it's mainly because I simply find it more comfortable to stand for a while a few times during the day.
Re: Standing Desks (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I started using a standing desk soon after I quit teaching, and I guess there's a connection. But I also have some level of ADHD traits, and I find it easier to work on a computer if I can move around. I guess the commenters that don't understand standing desks have never used one extensively; the idea is not to stand in attention for 8 hours straight, but to allow your body some natural movement.
It also feels nice to sit down for a break, or for things like reading. I don't like the idea of moving the d
Re: (Score:2)
Just thought of treadmill while working. What is a "cheap walking pad"? Same thing?
Re: (Score:2)
What is a "cheap walking pad"? Same thing?
Yup, functionally the same thing. They typically don't have prominent supports (or any at all, like the one I use), and are designed to be low-profile and easily put away. Just search for "walking pad" on Amazon (or just a search engine in general) and you'll see a huge array of examples. They are less reliable and more prone to breakage than traditional treadmills (which can cost thousands of dollars), but for $200 USD, I could realistically replace it annually if necessary.
Re: Standing Desks (Score:2)
Thanks! Iâ(TM)m good at walking while reading so even without a aut and stand desk which is pretty expensive (my info is old though) I could see walking with a tablet indoors then.
Is that because they didn't die of something else? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No white collar worker really has the option of moving ever 30 minutes or less.
Errr sorry that is horseshit. The world is full of white collar people who walk from one meeting room to the other every 30min, go take a piss, have a smoke, get a coffee, go to the watercooler. There's pathetically few jobs out there that tie you down to your desk.
Do you ever have meetings 30 min? (Score:2)
The world is full of white collar people who walk from one meeting room to the other every 30min, go take a piss, have a smoke, get a coffee, go to the watercooler. There's pathetically few jobs out there that tie you down to your desk.
90% of my meetings are 60 min. Probably 10% go for like 2h or more. A 30 minute meeting is rare at EVERY tech company I've worked at. In fact, in the vast majority of cases if it's 30 min or less, that means someone messed up and we ended it early to rescheduled it when someone is prepared to present properly. For about half the teams I've worked on, even our scrums are over 30 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
The longer you live, the more likely that you will die of cancer. If nothing else gets you first, cancer will get you eventually. That is just biology. Over time, our cells don't reproduce quite the same. Cancer.
A more active lifestyle is healthier overall, but it won't prevent cancer.
Re: Is that because they didn't die of something e (Score:2)
This statement is meaningless. "If you don't die first of something else, eventially you will die of cancer" says nothing. Just like "If I don't die before drinking hemlock, I will die when I drink hemlock" says nothing.
I guess I'm already dead? (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was young, I thought older people who shrugged these kinds of things off with "when it's my time, it's my time" were irrational. I'm past the half-way mark now and I get it.
I am not going to spend my life on min/maxing my health, because no matter what I do, I'm going to die. If I exercise, first I'm spending my time on something I dislike, second I will likely end up with joint issues and instead of cancer I'll just be in chronic pain.
There are limits, and I'm sure I'm making these choices at least half-blind to the odds, but I'm making the choices regardless. I eat decently but not a health-optimized diet, I make sure I move around enough that I don't lock up, and I make sure I don't get too fat to be active when I choose to be active, but I enjoy life more with my brain than my body.
If that means I lose one of the 80-90 years I'm likely to allocated given my current health, I'm absolutely at peace with that outcome. Unless science can tell me that changing my habits will give me decades more life, it's just not worth it to me to change my lifestyle over a significant but ultimately small shortening of my potential lifespan.
Re: (Score:2)
If I exercise, first I'm spending my time on something I dislike
that's the whole thing, you might look for a way to move your fibers doing something you do enjoy.
second I will likely end up with joint issues and instead of cancer I'll just be in chronic pain.
likely == depending on your choice of exercise. but apart from that, a sore joint doesn't necessarily erase your capacity to enjoy being alive. it might even help you to realize how valuable it is to actually feel alive, given you already reckon you're as good as dead. cancer kills the body. defeat kills the mind.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are lucky , you'll drop dead , or you'll have a short fatal illness.
Looking around, recent deaths in my circle have been preceded by agonising chronic illness, cancer etc.. Medicine can keep you alive, but it starts to look like a crucifixion after a few years. The agony isn't just physical, it's hope , yours and your loved ones.
I keep active because I believe I will suffer less , or have a better chance at recovery. It also helps me immensely with my mood and resilience. I want to set a good exampl
Re: (Score:2)
Got to stay active. I see it before me, now. My mum is one of a (non-identical) twin. The difference between her and her sister could not be more stark.
My mum plays golf and bowls regularly and has an active social life. My aunt is/was a "shut in" for the last 30+ years. I suspect a bit of mental illness played its part there. However, mum mostly has her marbles still, and can drive, shop and do most of the "real-lfe" things. My aunt is basically in gods waiting room and has her basic needs seen to by other
Re: (Score:2)
> If I exercise, first I'm spending my time on something I dislike
Doesn't need to be exercise: could be woodworking, gardening, car fixing.
My personal hope is to die healthy. I don't care as much about the when.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not going to spend my life on min/maxing my health, because no matter what I do, I'm going to die.
Well with that attitude you're certainly doing half of the "min/maxing" of your health, specifically the min part.
But your point is inanely stupid. We'll all die. The question is how will you die. Of old age while walking? Or after prolonged health issues from a debilitating disease that leaves you bed ridden for a percentage of your life?
Would you rather die of heart failure at 85 playing tennis, or die at 85 from falling down the stairs for the 5th time an activity that takes your fat diseased arse half a
You contradict yourself. (Score:2)
Your final line is relevant "Quality of life matters."
And for some people, "quality of life" is maximized by avoiding exercise (because they dislike it and so doing it lowers their quality of life) and instead doing computer stuff and eating tasty food. It is true that they will have health issues, but for most of their life those issues are minor inconveniences, and they are maxing out on quality.
Maybe they die at 85 from a heart attack or some other issue related to poor heath, and that's ok with them.
Re: (Score:1)
If that means I lose one of the 80-90 years I'm likely to allocated given my current health,
It's likely more like a decade than a year you'd lose if you don't get enough movement.
I'd recommend looking around and seeing if there's some activity you think you'd like or at least don't actively dislike and then try it out.
If you're social, there are many group activities, where the social aspect can outweigh the negatives.
If you're solitary and like to think, there's walking,
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've got the wrong goal. It's not so much about living longer (yeah, we're all gonna go sometime) as it is about staying mobile and competent. It's no fun to be alive and alert, but unable to walk, or to take a shower without help. My sister was a couch potato all her life, and now she's bedridden in an assisted care facility, and can't even stand up from her wheelchair. My goal is to stay active until I keel over dead.
Well, then.... (Score:3)
... that explains the massive spike in cancer deaths in 2020.
Wait... what?
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you expect a massive spike of cancer deaths in 2020? You think the study claims people will die instantly the moment they start sitting down more?
Do you similarly rebut the link between cigarettes and death by saying "that's why so many 14-year-olds suddenly keel over... wait, what?"
Re: (Score:2)
I guess he was joking about COVID and "sitting around at home" ...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that, and mocking this sentence:
Each additional hour of prolonged inactivity every day was associated with a 10% increase in risk of cancer death.
Since the base rate in the USA is 20%, that means after sitting for three 8 hour days, your risk has increased from 20% to over 100%.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I do not think that body activity versus cancer is well understood.
I guess it gets pretty quickly very complex:
- office worker
- doing martial arts nearly every day
- does not smoke
versus
- body worker (construction side?)
- no sports, only ruins his body with hard work (should do some sports to learn the do's and don'ts in body mechanics)
- smoker
What are the parameters/variables here?
Most - if not all? - cancer comes from environmental influences. Bad food, bad air, simply: poison or viruses.
Just move a bit frequently, even standing up! (Score:1)
We didn't evolve to sit around all day. Just move regularly. Set a timer, that works fine.
Take the stairs, don't take the lift. Even small amounts make a big difference.
You don't have to run for hours, or move into the gym. Thank God!
Cause and effect. (Score:4, Interesting)
If I had cancer, my behavior might change to sitting around more than exercising. Correlation is not causation.
Re: (Score:2)
>focused on the health effects of prolonged sedentary behavior on a daily basis.
If I had cancer, my behavior might change to sitting around more than exercising. Correlation is not causation.
Even correlational studies correct account for temporal effects you quarter-wit. Maybe instead of "derp derp correlation not causation" actually learn how science and statistical analysis works.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're claiming that this does show causation? You better notify the study authors of their huge oversight!
And if you're not claiming that, then you could have just said, "Yes, I agree" instead of showing your insecurity. So that's your fear, that you don't live to being a half-wit?
Do you even comprehend what "correlation is not causation" means? Do you think attempting to account for variables is the same as accounting for them?
This is a statistical analysis of an observational study. They can't accou
Tip: drink lots of water (Score:5, Interesting)
It's good for your system and forces you to move every 90 minutes or so. Just not before long meetings.
In other news, researchers determined (Score:2)
Re: In other news, researchers determined (Score:1)
I take it, this is correlation? (Score:2)
If so, no "doing wonders", at least not as a consequence from this research...
WOW (Score:2)
HOLY SHIT I better get MOVING
cool. (Score:1)
I stay in bed ... (Score:2)
So I just stay in bed, cool!
Well, actually it is beach time already ...
Based on animal studies ? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, people for the most part evolved without cooking their food. We've been evolving since long before the dinosaurs.
OTOH, they didn't actually decide that "burnt food kills you", they decided that it increased some risks. I've never seen any evidence that this was wrong.
Increased RISK not CHANCE and only 7 DAYS! (Score:2)
A 10% increase in risk of XYZ means if you have a 0.001% of XYZ happening to you, then a 10% increase takes you to 0.0011%.
Also, what is up with "Participants were followed for a median of 12.38 years" and "methodological limitations were... measurement imprecision due to having only 7 days of accelerometer wear." Does that mean this study only looked at 7 days of data then 12 years later they checked on who died? Wow. Sort of makes the whole thing meaningless (and if so then fuck you to all the news art
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of makes the whole thing meaningless
Yeah but we should be able to figure that out without going so far into their weed patch, just from "statistical analysis of an observational study."
There are only two ways to use a statistical analysis of an observational study: For ideas about real studies to perform, or to pad your resume at the publishing churn.
CinC (Score:2)
Correlation is... damnit
oh no.... (Score:2)
First our CEO wanted our company to become paperless. Now he will make us chair-less.....
30 minute sit (Score:2)
Correlation or causation? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's better than that: Sitting more during a random 7 day period of wearing a smart watch makes you slightly more likely to be dead 12 years later.
You could blame it on all sorts of things. Maybe people who masturbate a lot take the smart watch off out of embarrassment during the study, and then they go blind and get cancer because they can't read warning labels? I mean if we're credible of statistical analysis of observational studies we're gonna get worse results than that, too!
Lie down, don't sit. (Score:3)
This is why I watch TV while lying down on the couch rather than sitting up.
Re: (Score:2)
found that sitting or lying down
Oh right, you just read the Title and jumped in to comment - carry on.
Re: (Score:3)
It was a joke. Some people have no sense of humor.
What kind of idiot thinks that lying down is better than sitting when it comes to exercise.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not completely implausible to guess that being bent at the waist might restrict fluid movement and be even more unhealthy than lying down.
If you already know everything, especially the obvious stuff... you don't even need to worry about what a studies says.
So on the one hand, your joke was too stupid to be funny, and on the other hand, you overestimated your understanding too much to be able to spare the time on jokes.
Re: (Score:2)
So much of life revolves around facilitating the movement of fluids, so it's not unlikely.
So, insomnia is a death sentence? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Drinking water is a cancer risk (Score:2)
That's nice. I've heard drinking water, breathing air and looking funny at anything also increases cancer risk. Apparently getting a full nights rest can cause cancer. Obviously living puts you at risk of uncontrollable cell mutation over the long run and you could die of it. Fuck off with this bullshit article.
The Actual Fucking Risk!?!? (Score:2)
This study conveniently leaves out the actual absolute risk. But thanks to published data from the study's source and a bit of math we can determine the actual numbers.
Thanks to UK Biobank numbers we can determine that the approximate baseline mortality rate is around 2.7%
We can also determine form the study that each sedentary hour increases risk by approximately 0.24%
If you live a life of 10 sedentary hours per day - pretty common office life - your actual risk of cancer death has increased to around 6.3%
next (Score:1)
sitting (Score:2)
Sitting for less than 30 minutes at a time linked to higher risk of poverty.
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine. (Score:2)
I'm 55. I have a decade of alcoholism with uncontrolled sky high blood pressure accompanying it. My doctor once pointed to my liver enzyme chart and said, "Your liver is very unhappy with you." Then he pointed at my ECG and said, "See that little bump there? That might be what kills you." I had 18 months with a cocaine problem. For two years I partied hard including every psychedelic I could get my hands on. I spent 40 years out of shape, sometimes ridiculously so.
I'm in good shape now, and across the board
Cancer of what? (Score:2)
I actually read the article (I know, the the summary should be enough here. :) It's not any more specific only saying "cancer". If they're not going to say what type of cancer a more sedimentary life causes, them I'm going to call BS on it. At the very least they are too vague and really mean "a slower life means any cancer you're going to get anyway will advance a little faster"; but I'm not sure they even mean that. Think about an easy example, smoking can cause cancers of the body parts the smoke comes
Re: (Score:2)
I know, the the summary should be enough here.
Given the quality of the slashvertisements these days the summary is usually quite a bit too much.
Smoking only reduces lifespan by a couple years, on average. But it increases the unpleasant period of poor health later in life by over a decade...
Here, if you read at least the abstract you'd know that they "followed" people for 12 years... after having 7 days of accelerometer data. They wore smart watches for a week, then 12 years later they checked if they were still alive and if not what their cause of dea
To actually conclude this (Score:1)
To actually make a study conclusion that is truly solid, you would need a RCT (Randomized Control Trial) - this is impossible for such a hypothesis.
A confounding issue issue such as the amount of sunlight a person gets per day has been shown to affect mitochondrial health - 15 minutes per days makes a big difference. If you work inside, there is an observed difference in health outcomes based on the spectrum of the artificial light (full-spectrum being healthier). Did they control for these affects? How cou
Pretty much a worthless study (Score:1)
"including the fact that the researchers performed a statistical analysis of an observational study", so pretty much nonsense.
That said, there is clear evidence that moderate exercise and a few minutes of vigorous exercise daily increases longevity and significantly decreases all cause mortality.
Ask your favorite LLM: "what are 5 of the best studies on moderate exercise combined with a few minutes of vigorous exercise and VO2max reducing all cause mortality"
Re: (Score:2)
Asking an LLM about studies is just asking, "What is the garbage that gets talked about the most?"
It's like getting medical advice at the local bar, or in line at the supermarket.
Sitting for more then 30m... (Score:2)
Or it's just less drudgery (Score:2)
Or perhaps by getting up you temporarily free yourself from the daily grind and that's what's killing you.
Looking at the numbers feels a bit weird (Score:1)
Nearly 15% have *never* eaten a sugary food?
On average, only eating red meat two times a week?
But at the same time, only 4 servings of fruit/vegetables, so where do all their calories come from?
Maybe the 16 units of alcohol a week? Yikes.
The survery also said that they only measured activity over a week and then drew conclusions based on cancer rates years later.