Slashdot Mirror


Sit Longer, Die Sooner

mcgrew writes "Bad news for most of us here — The Chicago Tribune is reporting that even if you get plenty of exercize, sitting down all day reduces your lifespan. From the article: 'Even after adjusting for body mass index (BMI) and smoking, the researchers found that women who sit more than 6 hours a day were 37 percent more likely to die than those who sit less than 3 hours; for men, long-sitters were 17 percent more likely to die. People who exercise regularly had a lower risk, but still significant, risk of dying. Those who sat a lot and moved less than three and a half hours per day are the most likely to die early: researchers found a 94 percent increased risk for women and 48 percent increase for men, they announced recently in the American Journal of Epidemiology.'"

341 comments

  1. Don't sit down = Immortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the researchers found that women who sit more than 6 hours a day were 37 percent more likely to die than those who sit less than 3 hours; for men, long-sitters were 17 percent more likely to die

    You know... I'm pretty sure everyone is 100% likely to die...

    1. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 0

      +5 insightful, please. (:

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    2. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Meshach · · Score: 4, Informative

      the researchers found that women who sit more than 6 hours a day were 37 percent more likely to die than those who sit less than 3 hours; for men, long-sitters were 17 percent more likely to die

      You know... I'm pretty sure everyone is 100% likely to die...

      Unless you figure out how to exersize. It might be related to exercise, I cannot tell.

      --
      "Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
      Aldous Huxley
    3. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1, Funny

      But some of us plan on coming back: http://www.alcor.org/

    4. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by nomorecwrd · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that it is spelled correctly later on the same paragraph.

      Well, when in doubt, (and to lazy to look it up) that way you get a 50/50 chance. :-)

    5. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by mweather · · Score: 1

      Not me. Thanks to denial, I'm immortal.

    6. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by JazzyMusicMan · · Score: 1

      It might be possible to live forever by not sitting down, it'll just be hard as hell to find out. Who are you to say that if someone never sits, ever, then they wouldn't die? You could live to 1,000 years old, but the second you put your ass in a chair, you die. It'll be like the movie Speed or that Family Matters episode where the bus can't slow under 55 or the cop couldn't stop jogging on the treadmill. More research must be done!

    7. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by NemoinSpace · · Score: 2, Funny
      (and too lazy to look it up)

      Pot calling the kettle black ?

    8. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      You know... I'm pretty sure everyone is 100% likely to die...

      That's no reason to take it sitting down. (Ba-dum-tssss)

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    9. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by john83 · · Score: 1

      the researchers found that women who sit more than 6 hours a day were 37 percent more likely to die than those who sit less than 3 hours; for men, long-sitters were 17 percent more likely to die

      You know... I'm pretty sure everyone is 100% likely to die...

      It's probably a quote or a rephrasing from the paper. In that case "during the period of the study" is implied.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    10. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by nomorecwrd · · Score: 1

      hahaha...
      Although English is not mi mother tongue, that is definitely a mistake I won't consciously make. On my defense, I can only say: "finger error".

    11. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's pretty obvious that:

      1. the more time you spend sitting, the more likely you are to die sitting,
      2. the more time you spend standing, the more likely you are to die standing,
      3. the more time you spend lying down, the more likely you are to die lying down, and
      4. the more time you spend switching between these, the more likely you are to die on the set of Whose Line Is It Anyway?
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    12. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really should have logged in for this, because it's pretty much the funniest and most insightful comment I've read all day.

    13. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by mkiwi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, at least they didn't say exorcise-I'd hate to have to do that on a regular basis.

    14. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Jason+Kimball · · Score: 1

      If you never sit down...I mean, how many people have died of old age while standing up? I'd say almost everyone of them died sitting or lying down.

    15. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by bareman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Immortality, Hmmph!

      I won't stand for it!

    16. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't sit down = Immortality

      You know, you're pretty unlikely to find dead people standing up.

    17. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by derGoldstein · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why use denial when logic will do:
      I have no life -- therefor, I cannot die.

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    18. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Centurix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not me. Thanks to denial, I'm immortal.

      You'll need more exorcise than exercise...

      --
      Task Mangler
    19. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by derGoldstein · · Score: 2, Funny

      Although English is not mi mother tongue

      You don't say.

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    20. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possible but not likely given that 'mcgrew' is a known idiot on this site. Read his journals if you don't believe it.

    21. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Snorbert+Xangox · · Score: 1

      Just like Ray Kurzweil.

      --
      -Snorbert, somewhere in the antipodes
    22. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know... I'm pretty sure everyone is 100% likely to die...

      I plan to live forever, so far the plan is working...

    23. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by dangitman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, as James Brown said, "It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." Also, something about some kind of Sex Machine. I think this creed could be adapted to this era of Aeron chairs and teledildonics somehow.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    24. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Don't sit down = Immortality

      I don't care if this is slashdot and you haven't taken a bath in longer than RMS, you still need to take a dump at some point. Technically, you probably could do it standing up, I guess it "depends" ...

      You know, you're pretty unlikely to find dead people standing up.

      Never been to a real wake, have you? They'll be standing there, beer in hand, long after everyone else has drunk themselves under the table.

    25. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by humblecoder · · Score: 1

      There can only be one...

    26. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by raynet · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is the study that is causing the deaths.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    27. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I wish I could mod you "awesome"

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    28. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Alistair+O'Twill · · Score: 1

      Well I'm pretty sure that their statistics are referenced to people who didn't die. The numbers are meaningless, otherwise.

    29. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      You know... I'm pretty sure everyone is 100% likely to die...

      Correlation is not causation!

      Sorry, slashdot reflex there.

    30. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Frankly I don't know what English not being his mother tongue has to do with his English mistakes. I only know English, and some people say I don't talk good, but that unpossible.

    31. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      I think we ought to start a Religion Of Imortality, let's call it ROI - we will probably get lots of followers.

      Then we can introduce various "religious" requirements, to suit our needs and wants. After all, you can't deny religious freedoms.

      Bow down to the Truth of ROI! You can't deny my my cheeseburger! For it is written; "Verily, the chosen shall consume cheese burgers, and imbibe beer! So be it."

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    32. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure their sample included some vampires. It's a lot easier to stake them when they're sitting down.

      Presumably, the women were sitting with their legs crossed, so it was harder for them to stand up when they heard the assassin sneaking up from behind.

    33. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing too, because if you don't die, you might end up spending eternity looking at this guy's eyes. That would drive me nuts!

    34. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by nomorecwrd · · Score: 2, Funny

      I must read it before submiting
      I must read it before submiting
      I must read it before submiting

      I mast read it before submiting.. darn!

    35. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Next time, try:

      I must read and correct it before submitting.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    36. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by cavebison · · Score: 1

      Die standing? I'm not sure even horses can do that.
      Unexpected explosions notwithstanding.

    37. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, more than half the world's population craps whilst crouching. So, it's definitely doable.

    38. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Well, that depends. The universe probably won't support life forever. But that doesn't mean everyone has to die. Some day, we'll probably have the technology to evolve into a state which doesn't conform to our definitions of dead and alive. For example: joining a hive mind. Or transferring one's mind to a computer. Making backups.

    39. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by The+Hatchet · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, you still die. Everybody dies.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    40. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by bhiestand · · Score: 4, Funny

      the researchers found that women who sit more than 6 hours a day were 37 percent more likely to die than those who sit less than 3 hours; for men, long-sitters were 17 percent more likely to die

      You know... I'm pretty sure everyone is 100% likely to die...

      Speak for yourself. My life insurance agent promised me that I will never see a penny of that money.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    41. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's "submitting".

    42. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by ImonseI · · Score: 1

      aaaah aaah you used "I" pronounciation. when we have no life we are not a self. a self would mean having something to lose, and something that could die. (hooray for discworld :D)

    43. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Again. You meant that you cannot die again. Death is the absence of life, after all, and by your own admission you have no life, so logic would dictate that you are already dead. Thus, logic would say that you are dead, yet we can observe characteristics of life, such as your posting here. Based on this, I would classify you as undead. Now then, I seem to recall seeing an article around here about why the zombie apocalypse will fail...

    44. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      I wish I had points to mod you up for the Futurama reference. You should've added a "- Philip J. Fry" at the end so others would recognize it.

    45. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by X10 · · Score: 1

      No, you still die. Everybody dies.

      Oh, I am very determined not to.

      --
      no, I don't have a sig
    46. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but everybody lies.

    47. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Warll · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sorry about that guys.
      ~English Person

    48. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      To die implies having living at some point before. A rock (even the pet one) can't die. So if he never had a life, he's not dead, and neither can he die.

    49. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So 37% more means not only are you definitely going to die, you have over a one-third chance of dying twice!

    50. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, that was a quote from Emiliano Zapata. Couldn't find a date when he said it, but he did come before James Brown. Just by a small margin though.

    51. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      the researchers found that women who sit more than 6 hours a day were 37 percent more likely to die than those who sit less than 3 hours; for men, long-sitters were 17 percent more likely to die

      You know... I'm pretty sure everyone is 100% likely to die...

      Everyone takes life too seriously, it's why they don't get out alive!

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    52. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      It's submitting.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    53. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Eraesr · · Score: 1

      Who knows... so far you seem to be doing quite well.

    54. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh...

    55. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      It's actually quite a bit of fun. Every morning I stop at the local Catholic church to steal 3 water bottled full of holy water. I then spend my day at the office running around and splashing all the managers screaming "THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!" and "OUT SATAN!"

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    56. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried to poop while standing up?

      This is the paradox... never sit down = immortality, but you need to poop so a sitting position (Yes squatting = sitting) in order to poo destroys your immortality.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    57. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      He also said "Bitch, get back in the kitchen before I darken the other eye."

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    58. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      the researchers found that women who sit more than 6 hours a day were 37 percent more likely to die than those who sit less than 3 hours; for men, long-sitters were 17 percent more likely to die

      You know... I'm pretty sure everyone is 100% likely to die...

      Yeah, the summary kind of confused me (I'm purposely waiting until after I comment to RTFA). When someone leave out that one bit of important information (what age the numbers refer to) they're effectively trying to scare someone into viewing the story.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    59. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by CeruleanDragon · · Score: 1

      Pah, I'm the other way around, I'm a gamer, I've got LOTS of lives, and I can gain more! (with sufficient coins) Isn't that why people strive so hard to get gather as many as they can?

      --
      ad astra per alia porci
    60. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No amount of exersize will keep you from dying, but sitting all day will make you die sooner. However, when she was 95 years old my grandmother told me "I don't know why anybody wants to live to be a hundred, it ain't no fun bein' old."

      She lived another five years. Picking the right grandparents is the #1 determiner of how long you'll live (assuming you die of natural causes). If all your grandparents died before age 70, there's little chance you'll become a centenarian no matter how healthily you eat or how much you exersize.

    61. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Who wants to live forever?

      I don't know, always seemed that the McClouds had it pretty good.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    62. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by MasaMuneCyrus · · Score: 1

      It could be that sleep is nature's way of forcing us to die. If we could defeat sleep and stand 100% of the time...

    63. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by dintech · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure everyone is 100% likely to die...

      You're pretty sure?

    64. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      My favorite exersize is the twelve ounce curl. I usually do my exersizing at the bar.

      It's also exorsize.

    65. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever tried to poop while standing up?

      This is the paradox... never sit down = immortality, but you need to poop so a sitting position (Yes squatting = sitting) in order to poo destroys your immortality.

      I think this is what got Elvis...

    66. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by swb · · Score: 1

      Even better was Ike Turner's response when asked if he beat his wife, Tina:

      "Beat my wife? I don't hit the bitch anymore than any normal man beats his wife."

    67. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by sorak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, at least they didn't say exorcise-I'd hate to have to do that on a regular basis.

      You hate it? How do you think the ghosts feel. You're dead, you got nothing better to do than sit around some old house, looking at pictures of someone else's family, and finally you just say

      Screw it! I'm bored as hell, so I'm just going to move that figurine, right there. Haha, that'll mess with 'em.

      Oh, they moved it back. Man, I miss my old pony...and being alive. I think the thing I miss most about life is talking to people without them freaking out. They say "oh how I miss uncle Jacob", but all it takes is a little "I miss you too", and suddenly it's all "get a priest this", and "go back to hell that". Why can't I have a cool family that just smokes pot and breaks out the Ouija board. Sure, I can't get a contact buzz, but the pot makes it so much easier to mess with them. I don't even have to move their keys, I just have to wait for them to forget where they left them.

      Then some superstitious old perv comes in, starts splashing water everywhere, and suddenly you're flying back to hell. It's not entirely fair.

    68. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by sorak · · Score: 1

      It's pretty obvious that:

      1. the more time you spend sitting, the more likely you are to die sitting,
      2. the more time you spend standing, the more likely you are to die standing,

      Not true! Every dead guy I've ever seen has been lying down. I think the odds are much worse for those who lie down.

    69. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by sorak · · Score: 1

      the researchers found that women who sit more than 6 hours a day were 37 percent more likely to die than those who sit less than 3 hours; for men, long-sitters were 17 percent more likely to die

      You know... I'm pretty sure everyone is 100% likely to die...

      Speak for yourself. My life insurance agent promised me that I will never see a penny of that money.

      That just means that you got your life insurance from the same place I got my health insurance. I'm pretty sure that when I die, they'll either try to pass it off as a preexisting condition, or just say something like "Oh, he died while wearing green. We don't cover that".

    70. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by mr_gorkajuice · · Score: 1

      All slashdot posters has had a live though. Most of these lives were lost as the poster discovered computers, and realized that "having a life" means "getting laid".

    71. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Phoenixlol · · Score: 1

      No matter how much you excersize, you're never safe according to Slashdot... speaking of which, is this not almost the exact same story as http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/20/011244/Sitting-Down-Too-Long-Is-Bad-Even-If-You-Exercise ?

    72. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      And you still had managers after the first day?

    73. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      MacLeods

    74. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Garganus · · Score: 1

      Technology for a longer life; poop standing up.

      [Should probably be posting this anon, what with that whole immutable internet legacy. Oops.]

    75. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by l0xin · · Score: 1

      The summary doesn't specify any time-frame. But if you were to read the article, you'd find that it refers to an increased likelihood of dying in the period over the 14 years that they conducted the study. The "funny" comments to this article only serve to make it look like a tragic irony - that we all know the article is probably correct, but most of us are unwilling (unable?) to modify our behaviour to avoid the consequences it warns us of.

    76. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Hate to break it to you, but it's only a twelve ounce curl the first rep. (It's a diminishing pyramid set, or something.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    77. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That hasn't been proven yet. All we can say is that nobody has been verified to have lived longer than 122 years and 164 days. Who knows how long we can extend life with future medical advances, and they may even come quick enough that someone who is alive today will be able to effectively forever.

    78. Re:Don't sit down = Immortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      effectively forever

      That should be "effectively live forever".

  2. I really need to get my walkstation set up by oldspewey · · Score: 1

    I've been meaning to build a laptop platform for my treadmill for ages now ... this is the weekend I'm getting it done.

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    1. Re:I really need to get my walkstation set up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've done it, works well. I spent ages looking for a solution and they're all crap, or crazy prices. In the end I used a few lengths of 2x4 to make an H with the tops shorter than the bottom. The cross member sits tall with the side bars flat. It slots in behind the main tread panel and allows a laptop to sit on the prongs pointing forward with the cross bar pushing against the rear of the panel. Not all treads have the support bar below the panel, so you may need to create a stand of some kind.

      Tips: Running and walking at pace is not going to work. You're bouncing around and typing is a real PITA. If you want to burn calories, put it on a steep incline. Have a hand towel to hand, you'll sweat a lot and you don't want that dribbling onto your laptop. Have a water bottle or two to hand too, you'll need it.

      You'll be able to do 3 hour sessions without really knowing it once you get the hang of movement and keyboard work. I had to forget doing paperwork, or using pen, making notes etc, it simply didn't work for me. But pure coding, if you know what you're doing, is a breeze.

      The hardest part is forcing yourself to do it. It's far easier to slough in a chair behind a couple of huge monitors.

    2. Re:I really need to get my walkstation set up by queazocotal · · Score: 3, Informative

      To quote from the summary of the original article referenced. (alas, I don't have $40 to spare to read the paer)

      "Evidence supports that reducing time spent sitting, regardless of activity, may improve the metabolic consequences of obesity"

      So - the study only addresses obese people.

    3. Re:I really need to get my walkstation set up by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Or just get an iPad or wait for the android tablets to come out. It is not like you are going to be doing much typing, surely?

    4. Re:I really need to get my walkstation set up by cerberusss · · Score: 0

      I've been meaning to build a laptop platform for my treadmill for ages now ... this is the weekend I'm getting it done.

      Perhaps it's an idea to get an iPad. You can keep it in one hand, it might save you from rigging an extensive laptop platform. It might get heavy, though, so perhaps get a cheap desktop stand which might still be less work than building a laptop platform.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    5. Re:I really need to get my walkstation set up by Aalst · · Score: 5, Informative
      It's annoying that they hide the research behind paywalls, but my institution have forked over money for access.

      The participants were drawn from a mortality study by the ACS begun in 1992. The objective of the 1992 study (184,190 participants) was to investigate the relation between diet and mortality across the population (details in The American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort) From the section on "Materials and Methods" in the present paper we see that they didn't leave out non-obese people:

      We excluded sequentially from this analysis men and women who reported a personal history of cancer (n = 21,785), heart attack (n = 11,560), stroke (n = 2,513), or emphysema/other lung disease (n = 9,321) at the time of enrollment. We also excluded individuals with missing data on physical activity (n = 4,240), missing sitting time (n = 2,954), missing or extreme (top and bottom 0.1%) values of body mass index (n = 2,121), or missing smoking status (n = 1,347) at baseline. Finally, to reduce the possibility of undiagnosed serious illness at baseline that would preclude or interfere with physical activity, we excluded individuals who reported both no daily life activities and no light housekeeping (n = 4,730), as well as those who died from any cause within the first year of follow-up (n = 403). After exclusions, the analytical cohort consisted of 123,216 individuals (53,440 men and 69,776 women) with a mean age of 63.6 (standard deviation, 6.0) years in men and 61.9 (standard deviation, 6.5) years in women when enrolled in the study in 1992.

      They did record BMIs and what they found was the following:

      We examined the association between time spent sitting and total mortality in men and women combined, stratified by body mass index (Table 3). Although time spent sitting and physical activity were more strongly associated with mortality among lean persons (for time spent sitting, P_interaction = 0.06; for physical activity, P_interaction = 0.002), both measures were significantly associated with risk of total mortality regardless of body mass index.

    6. Re:I really need to get my walkstation set up by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      Actually the whole idea is to set something up where I can do as much typing as necessary ... which is a lot in an average day.

      An iPad would be horribly ill-suited for what I have in mind.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    7. Re:I really need to get my walkstation set up by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      No access to the research here, of course, but these sitting studies make me wonder if looking at sitters is selecting for health problems, rather than the other way around.

      I see from your post they excluded some major illnesses at least. But then:

      "time spent sitting and physical activity were more strongly associated with mortality among lean persons".

      If more obese people sit regardless of other health problems, you would have a weaker correlation between sitting and mortality in obese people, and a higher correlation in lean people who are less likely to sit without a secondary illness forcing it.

      Sensational reporting aside, at least the publicity may lead to more detailed research into what is going on here.

  3. Eh by jlechem · · Score: 1

    I had a good run, too much effort to get up and go outside.

    --
    Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
  4. "Exersize"? by PhxBlue · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think "exersize" is what you call someone who doesn't exercise. :)

    --
    !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    1. Re:"Exersize"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was searching the comments to see if someone has already commented on exercizzzze... LOL

    2. Re:"Exersize"? by Anachragnome · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I think "exersize" is what you call someone who doesn't exercise. :)"

      SuperSize...a minor savings that induces you to eat more.

      GiantSize...Fuck the cost, I'm hungry.

      ExerSize...So big, lifting it burns calories.

    3. Re:"Exersize"? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was searching the comments to see if someone has already commented on exercizzzze... LOL

      Thanks for the update, I was just wondering what you were doing.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:"Exersize"? by McNihil · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Thanks! you just made my day. ROFL.

    5. Re:"Exersize"? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      The new McDonald's Double Quarter-Tonner with Cheese.

    6. Re:"Exersize"? by lazyforker · · Score: 1

      I was searching the comments to see if someone has already commented on exercizzzze... LOL

      Thanks for the update, I was just wondering what you were doing.

      Relax. It's just an example of /.'s new Twitter integration. You can now post your mundane, narcissistic, self-absorbed comments directly from Twitter.

    7. Re:"Exersize"? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I should have kept my old sig, "typoos are a bitch".

    8. Re:"Exersize"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you not realise that slashdot is now twitter?

      I for one welcome our new avian overlords.

  5. Another brick in the wall... by SOdhner · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I start to add up all the things I do that make me more likely to die it gets depressing fast. In fact, I'm now so depressed all I have the energy to do is sit here and eat ice cream. God damn it.

    1. Re:Another brick in the wall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      depression is the leading cause of premature deaths (in depressed people)

    2. Re:Another brick in the wall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, there could be as much as an 83% chance you're likely to never die.

    3. Re:Another brick in the wall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What you need is an excuse to go outside and stroll around at regular intervals. Like smoking.

    4. Re:Another brick in the wall... by algormortis · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA, it says you can reduce the effects of sitting if you exercise your ass. No homo.

    5. Re:Another brick in the wall... by tobiah · · Score: 1

      insightful

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    6. Re:Another brick in the wall... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      I know - like what exactly are they trying to say? Don't sit? Theres far more risk in driving your car, walking across the street, drinking, smoking...

      I mean, Aging is mostly caused by breathing Oxygen! I mean, you'll live longer if you breath, but it will increase your risk of dieing.

      I'd like to see how long someone could survive if they were never allowed to sit. You can't spell guilty conscience without science!

    7. Re:Another brick in the wall... by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      If you want to die, is it really premature?

    8. Re:Another brick in the wall... by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 3, Funny

      What you need is an excuse to go outside and stroll around at regular intervals. Like smoking.

      The always relevant IT Crowd: "You cannot smoke here, they are moving us to a new smoking area."

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    9. Re:Another brick in the wall... by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      The good news is that both eating nuts and drinking beer REDUCE your mortality rate.

    10. Re:Another brick in the wall... by derGoldstein · · Score: 4, Funny

      I mean, Aging is mostly caused by breathing Oxygen!

      Definitely. If you stop breathing for long enough, you'll stop aging.

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    11. Re:Another brick in the wall... by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

      Also, how do you define "premature" in relation to dying? What's "mature" death?

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    12. Re:Another brick in the wall... by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Definitely insightful.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    13. Re:Another brick in the wall... by Alexandra+Erenhart · · Score: 1

      When you piss in your diapers and you barely recognize people, seems to be the case. Which oddly also applies to babies.

    14. Re:Another brick in the wall... by pookemon · · Score: 1

      Only if you ignore the gun/rope/pills/train/bus/hamster.

      --
      dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    15. Re:Another brick in the wall... by WhitePanther5000 · · Score: 1

      A "mature" death is a Death that doesn't interrupt you... or put signs on your back.

    16. Re:Another brick in the wall... by queazocotal · · Score: 4, Informative

      The FA is a report of a study.
      The excersize at your desk recommendations are simply the result of a journalist googling for a couple of minutes to pad out the article.

      There is no proof in the study that this would help at all.

      It might for example be an effect due to cranial blood pressure being lower when standing, leading to reduced strokes.

      It might be small clots forming in the legs during prolonged sitting, and this impacting health.

      It might be that the wheel bearings on office chairs emit a really toxic vapour.

      Or even the real effect is lying down for too long, and people that lie longer tend to sit longer.

      Or a combination of all of these factors.

      This sort of statistical study is almost useless taken alone.

      You might reduce this effect with blood pressure drugs, better seat design, changing lubricant, or getting out of bed.

      It seems logical that the excersizes listed would help - but absenting another large study - it's hard to prove.

    17. Re:Another brick in the wall... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I think the risk is the same while driving a car. I mean, after all, you're sitting...

      The rest of your comment reminds me of a great short story in Asimov's (or Analog, I subscribed to both as a teenager), where a female author was writing in the first person a female protagonist, who was giving birth and said "By this act I bring another death into the world."

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  6. Bonus! by X_DARK_X · · Score: 0

    Does that mean I now qualify for hazard pay??

  7. arn't we all at a significant risk of dying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not trying to be a smart ass, but the wording here looks like you either will or wont. we all are a 100% chance of dying sometime in the future, are we not?

    1. Re:arn't we all at a significant risk of dying? by Ghalko · · Score: 1

      I think the percents are much too simplified. Yes 100% deathrate. So then what do these simplified percents mean? Are they the area under the curve of aging? And is that by number of people who die at certain ages? So if I sit 8 hours a day does that mean that I will help lower the curve of life expectancy, but only if I take an in depth survey and don't decide to change my lifestyle at all? These percentages are either misused or misquoted, I suspect the latter.

  8. Proof that you can indeed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    outrun death!

    Anybody want to join me in Death Race 3000?

  9. 100% chance to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is so cool, I always thought that we all had 100% chance to die. Is there anyway to guarantee that I will make it into the 63% who are less likely to die?

  10. To die? But not sooner? by dissy · · Score: 4, Funny

    the researchers found that women who sit more than 6 hours a day were 37 percent more likely to die than those who sit less than 3 hours; for men, long-sitters were 17 percent more likely to die

    Wow. There is ANY percentage of people that are not likely to die?

    I shall never sit again!

  11. More likely to die? by e065c8515d206cb0e190 · · Score: 5, Funny

    the researchers found that women who sit more than 6 hours a day were 37 percent more likely to die than those who sit less than 3 hours

    ORLY?
    I thought the two groups were equally certain to die...

    1. Re:More likely to die? by ravenscar · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. Maybe someone has discovered something new. This article could be the biggest news in human history (or at least since peanutbutter met chocolate).

    2. Re:More likely to die? by DeadDecoy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Stupid (multiple) copy-paste summaries never mention source. Hell they don't even get the title right. The article is: "Leisure Time Spent Sitting in Relation to Total Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of US Adults" with the link at Oxford Journals. Basically, they looked at men and women ages ~50-70 and found an increased rate in death for those who sat around like lumps vs those that got exercise. It looks like 20% of the men died and 10% of the women (though I don't have the values give those that answered yes/no for sitting on the questionnaire).

    3. Re:More likely to die? by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      Ah but the longer you survive, the more likely you are to live until the day a immortality serum is invented...

    4. Re:More likely to die? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the link. Of course there's no details on how the researchers determined "physical activity" or any other evidence so I still tend to call this study BS because everyone knows 98% of statistics are made up on the spot.

      FTFA:
      " Time spent sitting and physical activity were queried by questionnaire on 53,440 men and 69,776 women who were disease free at enrollment. The authors identified 11,307 deaths in men and 7,923 deaths in women during the 14-year follow-up."

      Out of 53,000 men, over 11,000 died within 14 yrs? Who the hell were they following, 70 yr olds? Sure no one died of, oh I don't know, old age?

      This study seems to be so full of holes that it sounds like it was done by a 6th grade class, gotta say I'm pretty disappointed that the American Cancer Society put their stamp of approval on this.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    5. Re:More likely to die? by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Long live hermaphrodites!

    6. Re:More likely to die? by Temposs · · Score: 1

      "Out of 53,000 men, over 11,000 died within 14 yrs? Who the hell were they following, 70 yr olds? Sure no one died of, oh I don't know, old age? "

      No one dies of "old age". Everyone dies from something specifically identifiable. Dying from "old age" or "natural causes" is just a cover term for a number of common later life diseases that eventually cause death. This study could reveal that some of those "natural causes"-type diseases are brought on more quickly by sitting still.

      --
      Knowledge is just opinion that you trust enough to act upon. -Orson Scott Card
    7. Re:More likely to die? by Sean_Inconsequential · · Score: 1

      What they mean is if you sit for six hours a day and you are a woman your likelihood of dying is 137%.

  12. And in other news... by kazbah · · Score: 1

    ....scientists have identified that people who live eventually die.

    1. Re:And in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that is a nice "theory" but my book says that Jesus makes me imortal.

      I will not consider that theory as proven until every single man and woman has died.

    2. Re:And in other news... by X_DARK_X · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's jesus and what do you take it with?

    3. Re:And in other news... by WhitePanther5000 · · Score: 1

      LMAO - Mod parent up!

    4. Re:And in other news... by Leebert · · Score: 1

      my book says that Jesus makes me imortal. (sic)

      It says that people have eternal souls, irrespective of their belief in Jesus. It says nothing of their physical bodies lasting eternally.

      You may not believe it, and that's fine, but at least get it right if you're going to mock it.

  13. Everybody's risk of dying is 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody is less likely to die. Death and taxes, you know the saying.

  14. Sitting leading cause of death in the world! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "women who sit more than 6 hours a day were 37 percent more likely to die than those who sit less than 3 hours; for men, long-sitters were 17 percent more likely to die."

    standing around lets you live forever?

    1. Re:Sitting leading cause of death in the world! by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, it just feels like forever.

    2. Re:Sitting leading cause of death in the world! by GaryOlson · · Score: 1

      standing around lets you live forever?

      No, it just feels like forever.

      No, it feels like basic training.

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
  15. Standing Computer Desk by hdon · · Score: 1

    *sigh*

    Well, I just bought myself an elliptical machine. I guess now I should buy a standing computer desk for work.

    1. Re:Standing Computer Desk by somersault · · Score: 1

      I've thought about getting these before too. Would standing in one place be any better than sitting in the same place, I wonder? I already have an angled cushion at work to try to simulate standing position and improve my posture (sitting on a flat surface makes it extremely difficult to have good posture), I wonder if that makes any difference to just slouching back in your chair..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Standing Computer Desk by timeOday · · Score: 1
      This is timely for me because just yesterday I just in an order for a DVI splitter, second monitor, keyboard and mouse to add a stand-up terminal on my work computer. You don't need a second computer, or a KVM, etc; linux handles a second USB/mouse as you would expect, and I'd imagine Windows is the same.

      I ordered this because, even though I run daily, my back is starting to tire too easily. It's funny because I'm only in my mid-30s. I think it is my ergonomic chair, turning my back muscles to jelly. Now the only question is whether I will actually use the standup workstation.

    3. Re:Standing Computer Desk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows is the same, assuming USB and no special drivers for the keyboards (I hate multimedia keyboards, ugh.) I used to use two different mice on XP all the time when laser mice first came out. The wheel mouse was more accurate and better for graphics than the first gen lasers. Others do the same for those ball mice contraptions that I can't stand. I even do the same with an old bluetooth wireless keyboard and a usb keyboard. Both work perfectly. And I won't use an ergonomic chair for the reasons you state. When my old fashioned chair makes my back or butt sore, it means it is time to get up and move.

    4. Re:Standing Computer Desk by fractoid · · Score: 1

      What about people who sit but have nervous leg syndrome or the like? I recently started taking zinc supplements (apparently as a vegetarian I've been chronically low on zinc my whole life, go figure) and it's exacerbated my legs' desire to jiggle on their own (I have no problem with this, it annoys my cow orkers when it wobbles their monitors though. :P ) I'd guess I'm doing a similar amount of 'leg work' to people who stand relatively stationary most of the time.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    5. Re:Standing Computer Desk by somersault · · Score: 1

      I've always been a bit of a jiggler too. That was even before I started drumming. Apparently guys downstairs can tell what type of music I'm listening to (on my headphones) according to the vibrations through the concrete floor..

      --
      which is totally what she said
  16. hrumph by ak_hepcat · · Score: 0

    What if i exercise sitting down? I bounce my legs up and down like a drummer for most of the day. Does that count as not sitting?

    Hell, i sit down at home. If my wife is sitting on top of me, does that also not count as sitting? or do we have to be
    completely tantric about it to count?

    I mean, i'm just trying to figure it all out here....

    --
    Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
    1. Re:hrumph by ak_hepcat · · Score: 1

      For some reason, I thought I was on FARK and answered as if I were there.

      I'm not usually this crass. Oh, wait, yes I am. just not here.

      --
      Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
    2. Re:hrumph by c0lo · · Score: 1

      What if i exercise sitting down? I bounce my legs up and down like a drummer for most of the day. Does that count as not sitting?

      This will elevate the bouncing your legs to a higher intellectual level - less likely to get Alzheimer's too.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  17. 37% more likely to die? by Tester · · Score: 1, Redundant

    It's interesting that women who sit more than 6 hours are 37% more likely to die. I'm curious to know the absolute percentage of women who die versus the women who don't die. I heard the Virgin Mary didn't die (but went to heaven directly). I'd be curious to about other women who have similar advantages.

    1. Re:37% more likely to die? by mangu · · Score: 1

      I'm curious to know the absolute percentage of women who die versus the women who don't die

      According to Wikipedia, there are about 3.5 billion women who never died versus some 45 to 55 billion women who died

      Therefore, the answer to your question is 93%

    2. Re:37% more likely to die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      37% are likely to die while 100% are likely to diet.

  18. Huh? by MBGMorden · · Score: 0, Redundant

    the researchers found that women who sit more than 6 hours a day were 37 percent more likely to die than those who sit less than 3 hours; for men, long-sitters were 17 percent more likely to die.

    There has got to be more context to this than the summary is letting on. I'm pretty sure that regardless you've got a 100% chance of dieing. It's gotta qualify how much sooner or something.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    1. Re:Huh? by mozumder · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are you sure about the 100% chance of dying?

      I haven't died.

    2. Re:Huh? by falzer · · Score: 2, Funny

      I might get modded down for this, but I haven't died either, and I suspect others like me are beginning to come out of the closet.

    3. Re:Huh? by migla · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure people who are moving about will not die. The trick is to never stop moving.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    4. Re:Huh? by Xerolooper · · Score: 1

      It's gotta qualify how much sooner or something.

      How dare you! Don't confuse the science with facts!
      lol You must be right or the world just doesn't make sense. Haha The summary was misleading.
      From the article:

      People who exercise regularly had a lower risk, but still significant, risk of dying. Those who sat a lot and moved less than three and a half hours per day are the most likely to die early: ...

      Note it does say die early. Although the fact that the conversation was quickly reduced to what it was by the error is not surprising.

      --
      "The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget." -Thomas Szasz
    5. Re:Huh? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I don't think that anyone ever really dies; I hold to an immortalist philosophy.

      If death is the end of experience then, well, thats not really something that you can experience.

      My belief is that the process of experiencing an existance is not something that can end.

      I do believe that one can have amnesia and forget ones past experiences, though I believe that such amnesia is always a temporary phenomenon. Eventually you will remember all that you have experienced, even if it takes billions of years.

      So the 'experiencer' never actually experiences their own cessation of experience and from their perspective they never die,
      the 'experiencer' continues to experience after the 'death' of their body.

      I look at it like this; I (the experiencer who is writing this) am just one of out of all of the infinite, countless possible 'selves' that make up my true self.

      That 'true self' is the infinite collection of all of those individual selves, like this one.

      What I am 'remembering' as my life experience is not so much the experience of this individual self, but rather that infinite self 'remembering' the experiences of one of its components.

      Thus, if this individual self experiences, say, the catastrophic destruction of its body the true self simply leaves that one behind and takes up the 'rememberance' of another of its components.

      From the perspective of my individual self, it has not ceased to experience because the experience of the individual self is non-different from the experience of the infinite self; it comes about through the experience of the infinite self.

      From the perspective of other individual selves, perhaps the witnesses of the catastrophe which destroyed the body of that individual self of 'my true self', sure -- that body ceased to operate and that individual appeared to cease to exist.

      But thats because these witnesses are individual selves confined in their experience to the same thread of existance in which that part of 'my true self' ceased to operate.

      They cannot see beyond this world so they see the thread of experience of another self as being cut.

      The experience of 'being me' in effect 'jumps the tracks' into another world of experience and carries on with no problem.

      We are all ageless and eternal, infinite beings; infinity upon infinity. And we are all not just gods but God. The supreme personality is the combination of all of these infinite 'true selves'. And our destiny is to completely remember ourselves and all that we have done, all that we have experienced.

      And at that point, we, I, God -- will know ourself and we, I, God will be complete.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    6. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I died, and I'm still posting. It's awesome being dead.

    7. Re:Huh? by tepples · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure people who are moving about will not die.

      The families of athletes who have suddenly died during training or competition would disagree with you.

    8. Re:Huh? by c_sd_m · · Score: 1

      Some people are moving when they die. They just stop when they hit the ground. Getting hit by a car while riding a bike could keep you moving for a fair distance after you're dead.

    9. Re:Huh? by mpeskett · · Score: 1

      For a second there I thought you were talking about quantum immortality (using the multiple world's interpretation, so long as there's a non-zero chance of you surviving any particularly situation, there must exist a world where you do survive it, and you can only experience one where you did survive, so as an observer you will miraculously find yourself in the universe where you never die, even while all the other versions of you perish in the other universes).

      Then I read a few more lines and realised you just think you have a soul. You called it a true self, but that seems to just be a point of semantics. Add a little pantheism ("we are all God") to taste, but otherwise pretty much just a standard belief in some immortal thing that allows your personality to exist past the death of your body.

      Question: what's your reasoning for "My belief is that the process of experiencing an existance is not something that can end."? My experience of my own existence is temporarily suspended every time I fall asleep (excepting dreams), so what exactly makes it so inconceivable for experience to come to a permanent end?

    10. Re:Huh? by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      That's tasteless and misleading. Death is very rarely that immediate, especially in bicycle accidents. Furthermore, the guy driving the car probably has a higher risk of death in general -- it's been studied, non-cycling commuters have a higher (39%) mortality rate. The vividness of the bike-car crash tends to distract people from the fact that sitting (in the car) is much more risky, over time.

    11. Re:Huh? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      You are still experiencing in dreams, even in the dreamless sleep.

      Look up 'advaita vedanta'

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    12. Re:Huh? by mpeskett · · Score: 1

      Perhaps sleep is a bad example to cite, but the question remains; why exactly should experience be unable to end?

      If you have conscious perception for some amount of time, and then it were to cease, then sure... you wouldn't have any perception during the end of perception itself (it being an atomic moment of transition, there wouldn't actually be any "during" to perceive), but why should my ability to experience something have the slightest relevance as to whether or not it can happen?

      Aside from that, what do you suggest this 'experiencer', that continues experiencing after bodily death, actually is? I don't see any way for it to exist without positing some sort of supernatural spirit-stuff, which immediately falls foul of all the problems associated with dualism.

      Alternatively, if this experiencer exists inside the physical world we're familiar with then it must be made from some variety of matter, which we'd be able to detect the effects of if it were so intimately involved with the workings of every human brain.

  19. No more likely than anyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll have to admit, I didn't RTFA, but a few things from the summary are amusing.

    1) "37 percent more likely to die than those who sit less than 3 hours" Oh no! I'm more likely to die!!

    I would say that they are equally likely to die - eventually.

  20. What about laying down? by joshier · · Score: 0

    Just curious, I mean - surely laying down is as natural as standing and if the statistics added up - I'd present it to the boss at work and ask him to order a bed in.

  21. LIVE FOREVER! by fiveelementsatx · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So, according to the summary there are percentages of people who will never die... WOW

  22. Tell that to Buddhist Monks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Totally anecdotal; I haven't done a scientific study, but I have noticed that Buddhist monks, you know, that guys that sit perfectly still 8 hours a day 7 days a week, tend to live much, much longer than the average person. I think that is a bit of a hole in their study.

    1. Re:Tell that to Buddhist Monks! by joshier · · Score: 1, Informative

      That is a good point, however let's be honest - their minds are in a scientifically proven state of meditating [i]when[/i] they are meditating and to me it sounds healthier than multi tasking 10 different things at once. Why, it was only yesterday we had the news of http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/08/25/1234231/Digital-Devices-Deprive-Brain-of-Needed-Downtime Just thought it was quite relevant.

    2. Re:Tell that to Buddhist Monks! by mpeskett · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a bastardly nitpicking point and I think your point is a good one despite it, but any group consisting mostly of adults will show a higher life expectancy than average because it excludes the hump of child mortality. Vegetarians can probably quite honestly claim to live longer than average, since most vegetarians decide to adopt their diet at some point after infancy, but the same could be said of any other adult group.

      I don't have any data to hand on Buddhist monks, but I'd guess that they tend to already be adults before they get really devoted to it, so the same effect would be at work. But, the fact that they aren't all horribly unhealthy despite the hours of meditation does challenge the idea that physical inactivity directly correlates with mortality.

      Maybe it's the diet; low energy food with a low energy lifestyle has to be better for you than crappy food and 8 hours in an office chair (followed by another hour or two in the car and several more hours sat about at home). Or all the meditation, as against physical inactivity while working; I hear stress can do nasty things to your health.

    3. Re:Tell that to Buddhist Monks! by nobdoor · · Score: 0

      They're not sitting in office chairs while they do it. Their muscles are engaged in their posture, as opposed to slouching (like what I'm doing right now).

      I've been considering taking my desk to a table saw and removing about two feet from its base. This way I would be sitting on the floor instead of my office chair. I think that this would be more healthy because it is more natural, allowing me to squat, sit, lie on my side, and kneel; as opposed to the limited options I have in my office chair.

      Think about it. Humans didn't evolve into office chairs. Our resting position has always been on the ground until recently.

    4. Re:Tell that to Buddhist Monks! by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

      I am glad someone brought this up (I was just about to post it when I read your comment). It would be interesting to have had the participants note their "stress level" as another monitored component. I certainly do not have enough information about the study, but the phrasing around it suggests that the "sitting" they're referring to seems to be the type of sitting one does while working. I am making the assumption that perhaps the absence of stress from a Buddhist monk's sitting versus a person sitting at a desk for hours with all the associated pressures/stresses of a work day may indeed be the hole you're suggesting. To reiterate, though, I have no proof of this, and it is merely my speculation.

  23. Correlation? Causation? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article doesn't cover correlation vs. causation at all. Does anyone have a link to an abstract or similar?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Correlation? Causation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://xkcd.com/552/

    2. Re:Correlation? Causation? by gregor-e · · Score: 1

      The sitters group includes the people who are too sick or crippled to get up and move. It would be quite a surprise if there were not a higher incidence of mortality in this group.

    3. Re:Correlation? Causation? by gregor-e · · Score: 1

      Okay, ignore that. (Replying without RTFA again. Sheesh!)

    4. Re:Correlation? Causation? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      There's actually a lot of causation-related science behind this as well. A lot of papers have come out in the last year talking about how sitting affects our health much more than we're-not-burning-calories.

    5. Re:Correlation? Causation? by Aalst · · Score: 1
      The original paper does (of course) discuss various other factors that may contribute to the result. FTFP's "discussion" section:

      Several factors could explain the positive association between time spent sitting and higher all-cause death rates. First, time spent sitting might be more easily measured than physical activity and/or may reflect a different aspect of inactivity than other indices usually used in epidemiologic studies. However, this potential misclassification of exposure is unlikely to fully explain our findings, because time spent sitting was significantly associated with mortality even among men and women with the highest levels of physical activity.

      Second, time spent sitting might be associated with other unhealthy behaviors that are either not captured or incompletely captured through questionnaires. Total energy expenditure is reduced among individuals who are sedentary. However, consistent with previous studies, the present study found no correlation between physical activity and time spent sitting (r = –0.03). Time spent sitting is also associated with greater food consumption and subsequent weight gain, especially when watching television (16, 34, 35). Time spent sitting was previously shown to be associated with increased weight gain in this cohort (18). While residual confounding by obesity could contribute to the association between sitting time and mortality, this association was attenuated but not eliminated by controlling for or stratifying on body mass index.

      Third, prolonged time spent sitting, independent of physical activity, has important metabolic consequences that may influence specific biomarkers (such as triglycerides, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, fasting plasma glucose, resting blood pressure, and leptin) of obesity and cardiovascular and other chronic diseases (8–11). Animal studies have also shown that sedentary time substantially suppresses enzymes centrally involved in lipid metabolism within skeletal muscle, and low levels of daily life activity are sufficient to improve enzyme activity (36–38). Furthermore, substantial evidence in both adults and children from observational studies and randomized clinical trials shows that reducing time spent sitting lowers the risk of obesity and type II diabetes (19, 39–42).

    6. Re:Correlation? Causation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! Could it be that it is because people who have a job that requires sitting all day are also subject to more work-related stress throughout the day (due to thinking, making decisions, procrastination, procrastinating making decisions, etc) than those who do physical jobs? It could be the stress that does the real harm rather than the sitting itself.

  24. Living = by Dyinobal · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Living = 100% likely hood to die.

    1. Re:Living = by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you don't get your head cut off.

    2. Re:Living = by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      Or hanged or executed by firing squad.

  25. Sit less than 3 Hours? by iammani · · Score: 1

    What do they do the remaining 21 hours? Lie down?

    1. Re:Sit less than 3 Hours? by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Yes. Or stand. Most people sleep for around 8 hours....and then plenty of people have jobs where they are unable to sit, so that's another 8 hours. For the last 5 hours - maybe they lie down, exercise, put in some overtime, do random jobs at home that involve standing or walking, maybe gardening (doesn't say they don't kneel)....plenty of ways you can not sit. I mean, how are you going to sit for 21 hours? Computer, TV, office job...and that's about it.

  26. 137% Likely to die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if a perfectly healthy person has a 100% chance of death, then sitting for more than 6 hours a day you have a 37% chance to die twice... this can only mean one thing: zombies!

    Interesting that women are roughly twice as likely to become zombies compared to men.

  27. Ahh! by Rainwulf · · Score: 1

    This is why old people die, not because they are old, its because they sit down all the time!
    Get up Grandma!

  28. Sit Longer, Die Sooner, and... by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

    Leave a good looking corpse and/or zombie husk!

    You'll live longer if you ignore every stupid news story that's trying to get your attention by claiming you're going to die or live, depending on the content of said article. Not convincing enough. Sitting should just cause some interesting bowel cancer or some other less boring outcome. I want my 45 seconds back for reading that summary!

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  29. Oh fuck off. by unity100 · · Score: 0

    and for how long the research was conducted ? what was the sample size ? get a load of that : 'likely to die'. gee. no relevant cause of death, stuff that can happen due to anything ranging from genetic heritage to smoking or traffic accidents.

    yeah.

    1. Re:Oh fuck off. by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Informative

      Did you even make it past the first paragraph?

      and for how long the research was conducted ? what was the sample size ?

      The article:

      That's the sobering news from a new study that tracked more than 100,000 adults for 14 years. Researchers from the American Cancer Society in Atlanta followed 53,000 men and 70,000 women and asked them to fill out questionnaires about their physical activity.

      So ... yes. Obviously they completely left out the information you were missing. Especially the bit where they're expecting you to, you know, read the fucking article.

      'likely to die'. gee. no relevant cause of death

      The article:

      Unlike most bad news, this one is best heard standing up: people who sit more than 6 hours a day are more likely to die earlier.

      That's the first fucking paragraph of the article. So not only are you an idiot, you're also blind.

    2. Re:Oh fuck off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      paragraph three of the news article:

      "That's the sobering news from a new study that tracked more than 100,000 adults for 14 years. Researchers from the American Cancer Society in Atlanta followed 53,000 men and 70,000 women and asked them to fill out questionnaires about their physical activity."

      there were no stats about how likely you might be to die early if you are too lazy to read beyond the first paragraph

    3. Re:Oh fuck off. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      no, and i didnt need to read the article. is it enough ? adults tracked for 14 years. leave aside already being adult when tracking started, even if they were children they would be born in standards of an old age, where their parents werent even warned to cut smoking while pregnant or in waiting, in addition to many other things. being born, and grown up in such a time, means that already many things would be imperfect health wise, compared to now. it doesnt matter zit whether they die earlier or not. i dont think there is any soul who would actually mistake that non sitting people may not die. so, your hasty retort is just as absurd as not reading the article.

    4. Re:Oh fuck off. by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      The synopsis is still misleading and uninformative masquerading as something informative. That is what people are bitching about.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  30. Wow by david_bandel · · Score: 0

    "the researchers found that women who sit more than 6 hours a day were 37 percent more likely to die than those who sit less than 3 hours; for men, long-sitters were 17 percent more likely to die. People who exercise regularly had a lower risk, but still significant, risk of dying" So we're talking about a finite probability of immortality if I never sit? I'll never sit again!

  31. Duh! by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Funny

    A stationary target is much easier to hit by a falling piano, but walk around a bit, and you'll only lose a kidney from the flying wood splinters.

  32. Blatant typo is blatant. by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

    "exersize?" Really? Do you guys actually read what you type before posting?

    1. Re:Blatant typo is blatant. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Do you have any idea how much of a PITA the submissions page is in IE6? No, I wasn't using my own computer. I can't metamoderate at all on this machine (I hate it).

  33. Re:First po- by unity100 · · Score: 1

    valiant effort at humor ...

  34. Their recommendations by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1
    They recommend the following, although there is no indication whether this comes from the cited article or it is an ex recto list:

    "To squeeze in some more exercise at the office, try a few of these tips:
    • "Take frequent laps around the office or outside.
    • "Find an exercise buddy at work and agree to get off your butts several times each day.
    • "Stand up and stretch every hour. Set an alarm on your phone or computer to remind you.
    • "Do calf raises: while standing, push yourself up on your toes, hold, and release.
    • "While sitting, squeeze your butt: tense your gluteals, hold, and relax.
    • "While sitting, raise your shoulders up to your ears, then back down."

    Given the astonishingly poor wording in the article, I would speculate that this list is pure unsubstantiated arbitrary touchy-feely bullshit. They sound pretty ridiculous.

    1. Re:Their recommendations by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      None of these things offset the increased mortality effect, per the study. As stated elsewhere, buddhist monks use this study as toilet wipes.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
  35. chance to die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if I don't sit for 6 hours a day I have a chance to not die?

  36. Yes, the cat got my tongue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's sad to me that with such strange and interesting news, everyone is making jokes about a missing word: "... die [sooner]...". No wonder I haven't had a good discussion with anyone lately. Though, at least I've had a few good laughs. Sigh.

    1. Re:Yes, the cat got my tongue... by david_bandel · · Score: 0

      It's the preponderance of missing words (bad grammar) that inhibit your ability to have a good discussion. Not people's willingness to mock people who can't employ simple English.

  37. Link to actual abstract by noidentity · · Score: 1
    Abstract.

    I'm just wondering what the cause of increased mortality was. Was it the increased sitting, or some third factor that was also the cause of these people sitting more?

    1. Re:Link to actual abstract by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1
  38. Exercise Ball by tobiah · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I sit on one of those exercise balls while programming. It keeps you moving and discourages slouching.

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    1. Re:Exercise Ball by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      A related recommendation would be a Stokke chair. The company philosophy is that humans are not meant to sit still, and certainly not at an overly tight 90-degree angle between the torso and the thighs. Most of their chairs have a slightly rocking design, whereby your body will find a natural balance, depending on the task.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:Exercise Ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you must look ridiculous, surely...

    3. Re:Exercise Ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and it gives you a nice and discrete massage of the groin area...

    4. Re:Exercise Ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to, I somehow managed to find a way to slouch. I also got a really bad back from them... later I hear they are not so good. It's best to mix it up... some ball, some herman miller, some kneeling praying for god to give you a time extension.

    5. Re:Exercise Ball by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I sit on one of those exercise balls while programming. It keeps you moving and discourages slouching.

      However, it puts your spine into a C-shape which is bad.
      S-shape is the optimal.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    6. Re:Exercise Ball by Uzuri · · Score: 1

      I tried that. Unfortunately it turns out that I'm quite capable of slouching while remaining perfectly still even on an exercise ball.

      --
      I'm a she-slashdotter... but I make up for it by living with my folks.
  39. Meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't really bother me. I'd still rather sit here and play computer games. This world seems to only get worse every decade anyway. Even if given the ability, I still would not want to live forever.

    I'm 27 now, and I've always said I would rather die early before my body starts falling apart due to old age. I've been careful not to get married or any of that crap, so I don't have anyone else to worry about.

  40. Hmm.. stats don't lie by way2trivial · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Number_of_humans_who_have_ever_lived

    Estimates of "the total number of people who have ever lived" published in the 2000s range approximately from 100 to 115 billion (1 E11).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
    The world population is the population of humans on the planet Earth. In 2009, the United Nations estimated the population to reach 7,000,000,000 in 2011;[1] current estimates by the United States Census Bureau put the population at 6,864,700,000.[2]

    Math
    7/100 or 7/115

    it's really only an 93-94% mortality rate so far.. who knows what tomorrow will bring
    I'm currently beating the odds......

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  41. Junk Science alert by CCarrot · · Score: 1

    This whiffs strongly of someone who's scrambling to find something before the submission date, so grabs the first crackpot study she finds, throws in some butt-tightening exercises (do this or you'll DIE) and throws it at the editor...

    Seriously, the numbers are all statistical, but with no context, they are (as some of you have pointed out) completely useless. 37% more likely to die than what? an 80 year old grandmother? Does sitting shorten the average lifespan by 37%? get serious.

    To be fair, the fault may lie in the write-up rather than the actual study, but since she doesn't link to anything to back up her scribbles, one would have to be interested enough to dig through the ACS studies to find the original (if it's even public). Sorry, I am not that interested.

    Smacks of junk science to me...

    --
    "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  42. "exersize" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    really, mcgrew? really?

  43. 6 billion counterexamples by mangu · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure everyone is 100% likely to die.

    Well, not everyone has died yet, you know...

    I, for one, hope that immortality will be one of medical science's accomplishments during my lifetime.

    1. Re:6 billion counterexamples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Immortality is a physics problem. Doctors may be able to prolong life, but I doubt they will solve the universes inevitable end (big crunch, heat death, proton decay, or whatever). I am still pretty confident that everyone has to die.

    2. Re:6 billion counterexamples by derGoldstein · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, if you're going to be literal about it -- there's no stable definition for *life* at all. I can't find the article, but I think it was slashdotted within the past month.

      The simpler definitions for life must include crystal growth and possibly fire. The more complicated ones, which exclude what we'd consider "chemical" or "mechanical", don't exclude botnets and some internet-spreading malware. Under some definitions, warez can be considered a parasitic organism, and any programmable computer as a form of host to all sorts of "life forms".

      Now add the blurry definitions for "consciousness" and what "being self-aware" means, along with the debate over whether or not we have free will on any level, and you could say that we are both dead and alive at the same time, and/or that our property of "being alive" flickers on and off.

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    3. Re:6 billion counterexamples by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Immortality will never happen, even if they solve the aging problem and disease problems you cant solve the "stepped in front of a bus" problem. until they figure out how to jack a young poor persons body and give the mind over to the rich old guys..

      Oh you know that will happen, I'm actually surprised we done see the poor harvested for organs for the rich yet.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:6 billion counterexamples by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Big crunch won't happen; it was proven that the universe is expanding faster than it could possibly be able to contract, back in the late 90s if memory serves. I agree with your confidence that death happens to most people. I like Woody Allen's quote, "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying!" He also said "Don't knock masturbation, it's sex with someone I love!" (in Annie Hall), which I think touches all of us, here at Slashdot. Me, I intend to be immortal, but don't tell my parents, they might cut something else off me.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    5. Re:6 billion counterexamples by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Organ harvesting (even so far as your example of "body harvesting") will likely be a short-lived phenomena; we will be able to grow organs (and bodies) in short order. The "stepped in front of a bus" problem is easily solvable: I'll have a transmitter in my body, sending all of my sensory input as well as my thoughts up to my backup server, located somewhere safe like down a deep hole, or up a steep gravity well. If my plane happens to crash into a mountain, all of my existence including the screaming as the plane is about to hit will be preserved (depending on how often it updates; I plan to have one that is constantly sending, so perhaps a few milli-seconds might be lost).

      The benefit to this is not only that I'll "wake up" with all my memories intact -- I can also participate in the disaster recovery program, perhaps I saw something on the wing that caused the plane to go down (or others on the plane did, etc), and can help make the plane stronger and more resistant to that type of failure.

      Of course, with that type of technology we won't still have "planes" (or the need for them; we could move around virtually at far faster speeds, and interact virtually faster than we could in person, especially if we were nano-enhanced for direct brain interface, ad nauseum).

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  44. What About Other Positions? by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

    First off, here is a link to the abstract of the paper itself (if anyone could find a non-locked version, I'd be interested in reading).

    Secondly, this study seems to have left out a lot of time from the day. Primarily, the study looks at humans who have spent greater than 6 hours per day sitting, or less than 3 hours per day sitting. What it doesn't do is discuss relevant times that were spent doing other things. For instance, suppose you sit right on the threshold. Suppose someone sits for 6 hours a day, but stands for three hours a day. I am pretty sure that still leaves 15 hours in that day. If we generously compensate for a 12 hour sleep period (far more than most folk I know), that still leaves 3 hours unaccounted for. I would assume those three hours were spent doing some combination of sitting and standing, and that the 6/3 hour marks are simply dividers as noted within the data. What I am curious about, though, is what exactly is the 'healthiest' method for spending your day. If I spend less than three hours a day sitting, that means I am spending 21 hours doing other stuff. If I sleep 12 hours, that means I get 9 hours of standing/physical activity. Have there been any studies done that discuss the health effects of 9 hours of straight standing/activity? I know that I've spent 10 hours doing hard manual labor before, and I can promise you that I did not feel healthy afterwards.

    Also, is there any discussion or research being done regarding the best ways to break up these time intervals? Is it best to stand for three hours, sit for one, stand for three, sit for one, stand for three, and go to bed? Is it best to stand for 9 hours? Does it matter at all? For those of us spending 8 hours sitting at work, and possibly 1 to 2 hours commuting, that is a grand total of 9 to 10 hours a day of sitting. However, if we get up and bugger around for a 10 - 15 minute break every hour, that adds up to 150 minutes max, which is 2.5 hours. So now, if I take a 15 minute activity break every hour at work, I still am sitting more than 6 hours a day and standing less than three hours a day. So I am still screwed. And even more importantly, that kind of activity would probably show up on my review as damaging productivity. Can this be used as justification for insisting that my employer guarantees me more activity in my job, or perhaps more breaks?

    This study certainly seems interesting from a relevancy point of view (despite the asinine way of presenting the results: chance of dying? come on that's ridiculous). However, there is almost no useful information that can be extracted from it that relates to the average office worker. In other words, what could I actually do to fix this other than changing jobs? From what I can tell, there is not a whole hell of a lot. All in all, it's an interesting study, but the results seem inescapably damning for modern work environments.

  45. People who stand all day *still* die by joelsanda · · Score: 4, Informative

    As George Carlin said, "Eat well, stay fit, and die anyway."

    --
    The Luddites were ahead of their time.
  46. "Nah... sometimes I wanna die." by seeker_1us · · Score: 1

    Quote from Carl, Aqua Teen Hunger Force.

    1. Re:"Nah... sometimes I wanna die." by blair1q · · Score: 0

      I never watched that, but the irony of a team of superheroes made out of Fast Food is...ironic.

      I mean, they'll save you now, but eventually they'll kill you...

  47. Link to the actual paper by timeOday · · Score: 2, Informative

    The article doesn't, but the abstract of the actual paper says all participants (53,440 men and 69,776 women) were disease free at enrollment and the followup period was 14 years. Moreover they adjusted for smoking, body mass index, and "other factors." Too bad the full paper is behind a paywall. However the case for causation looks quite strong.

    1. Re:Link to the actual paper by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 4, Informative

      The abstract ends with this disturbing assertion based on their statistical study of a large amount of empirical data:
      "The time spent sitting was independently associated with total mortality, regardless of physical activity level. Public health messages should include both being physically active and reducing time spent sitting."

      In effect, no matter what else you do, the more time you spend sitting, the shorter your lifespan. That is some nasty shit.

    2. Re:Link to the actual paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      One gets the feeling that the metric is that "any physical action that wasn't performed by a caveman is bad". Cavemen didn't sit in chairs for long periods -> sitting in chairs for long periods will reduce your life span.

    3. Re:Link to the actual paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not at all. It could be that having a short lifespan causes you to sit down more.

  48. Smokers are exempt by Nick · · Score: 1

    The ones that get up every hour to step outside for a smoke that is. Now if they can just solve the cancer thing.

    --
    Fuck Ajit Pai
  49. ORLY? by agent_vee · · Score: 1

    Sitting here in my safe office cubicle, I think I am a lot less likely to die right now than someone not sitting and out there in the world doing any number of dangerous things, like driving while texting!

  50. Not All That New News by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

    FYI - similar information was reported in BusinessWeek a few months ago, referencing studies from as far back as 2005

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_19/b4177071221162.htm

    One approach to avoiding these problems is the treadmill desk. Around five years ago I had a leg injury that made sitting very painful - driving was torture - so I spent about a year standing in front a raised desk each work day. It took about a week to get used to it (the alternative being constant pain from sitting down probably helped to speed my acclimation). Once I had adjusted, I found standing just as comfortable as sitting. I expect that using a treadmill to simply walk at a very leisurely pace would be just as easy and I am planning to furnish my home office with one once the new house is built.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Not All That New News by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Same here. I built a standing desk at work and I've been upright for over a year now. As you said, I acclimated pretty quickly so that standing is no less comfortable than sitting.

      Oh, and I lost 30 pounds last year. Granted, the standing desk was only part of a health regimen I started, but I believe it helped. That alone has to have dropped my early death likelihood by quite a lot.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    2. Re:Not All That New News by robi5 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you can evwn generate electricity.

  51. The faster you move, the slower you seem to age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reverse statement is sort of true as well:

    The faster you move around, the more you approach the speed of light. As a result, everyone around you sees you aging slower and you can see them aging faster.
    Your body however, will age just as fast as anybody else to you as the observer.

    Time travel ftw!

  52. If you stand up longer, however... by r00tyroot · · Score: 1

    You increase your risk of Ninja star attack.

  53. Dying from what ? by VocationalZero · · Score: 1

    Those who sat a lot and moved less than three and a half hours per day are the most likely to die early

    Dying from what , exactly? They never specify, not even in the article. This is FUD .

  54. Original source by alexhs · · Score: 4, Informative

    Of course with reposts of reposts the story can get a little inaccurate...

    So the most obvious difference is that they're talking about leisure time spent sitting.
    Also, it seems that the correlation is by means of "everything else being equal" (which is ok by itself, but the reporting is screwing about that). It doesn't mean that people with regular physical activity but sitting a lot have a higher mortality rate than people with lesser physical activity but sitting less, only that for the same level of activity, people sitting more in their leisure time have a higher mortality rate.

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    1. Re:Original source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the most obvious difference is that they're talking about leisure time spent sitting.

      So, sitting all day at work is perfectly fine? Good thing the body can distinguish between leisure and work. That's a load of every employer's and insurance company's mind.

  55. Re:To die? But not sooner? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

    Wow. There is ANY percentage of people that are not likely to die?

    I shall never sit again!

    A highlander ? But since there can be only one it's probably well within the error bars. Now that I think of it I didn't see him do much sitting either.

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  56. False figures by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Everyone is 100% likely to die. To record, there are no immortal humans. And since there is no accurate way to predict when someone is going to die (without scheduling executions) no figures can possibly approach accuracy as the life span of one human has little to do with the life span of another human... at least in the same sense of one coin toss has no relation to the outcome of another coin toss.

  57. Junk Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    More like a junk summary. The original research article is published in the American Journal of Epidemiology (2010) volume 172(4): 419-424. "Leisure Time Spent Sitting In Relation To Total Mortality In A Prospective Cohort of US Adults."

    Note that its leisure time spent sitting, based on answers to the following question "During the past year, on an average day (not counting time spent at your job), how many hours per day did you spend sitting (watching television, reading, etc.)?"

  58. Pushes glasses up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lifting food of any weight burns calories, technically.

  59. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to come to terms with my skepticism towards the study and feel motivated to be more active by these statistics. But, the math geek in me says a 117% chance is not possible while the stoner in me is wondering if this means I've already lived 17% longer than the universe intended me to, or if I will live 17% longer than I should. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, maybe saying I have a 100% chance of dying is far too pessimistic. In reality, 9 out of 9 people die, so I'm actually only at a 99.99% chance of dying.

    But if I don't accumulate that extra 17% risk... yeah... yeah... I think as long as I sit for less than 6 hours a day, I've got a real shot at immortality.

  60. Bah, I bet it's another M$-sponsored study. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In reality, they went out of chairs...

  61. It costs $40 to RTFA by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    read the fucking article

    From the article:

    Pay per View - If you would like to purchase short-term access you must have a personal account. Please sign in with your personal user name and password or register to obtain a user name and password for free. You may access this article for 1 day for US$40.00.

    I hope you didn't mean that only people who have paid for access to the article have the privilege of joining the discussion. Did you mean something different? But I will grant that the abstract mentions deaths "during the 14-year follow-up".

    1. Re:It costs $40 to RTFA by MartinSchou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And that article is NOT linked in the summary in this particular story. Since there is only one article linked in the summary, it is obvious to anyone that that would be THE article in question.

      That you happen to have dug up the actual report, something neither the poster nor the article write did, changes nothing. All the information I have posted and the grand parent wanted, was in the linked article, free to anyone to read.

  62. Re: oblig smbc reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh, this sentiment has been explored before in comic form.

    http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1968#comic

  63. More likely to die by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    Damn, I'm 117% likely to die. It's not fair!

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  64. Sue chair makers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't put warning labels on their products.

    Or sue employers, who pay me to work in the sitting position.

    Or sue entertainers, who force me to sit while I'm watching them

    Damnit, why isn't anyone looking out for my health?

  65. Forget the health implications. by ikarous · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sitting just hurts.

    I'm young and in good health, so I haven't given much thought to the long term health implications of too much sitting. What I can anecdotally report is that the more time I spend in a chair, the worse I feel. The relationship is almost linear. Not coincidentally, the realization didn't dawn on me until after I graduated from college and began working full time. Before graduation, I spent a lot of time on my feet walking to and from class and to work, since I had the good fortune to have an internship within walking distance of my college campus. This was only eight months ago, but the change in my energy level is very discernible. I can only imagine how pronounced the effect would be when magnified over the course of many years.

    But that's just the job. I imagine that for most of the Slashdot audience, sitting at work is often unavoidable, unless you can afford a nice walkstation setup. What about when you're not actually at your desk, though? Usually, you're still sitting, even if you're going somewhere.

    The biggest sitting problem (for Americans, at least) outside of work is that our cities, our jobs, and even our recreation is not really intended for pedestrians. I love to walk, but many places and jobs are not pedestrian-friendly. I have so grown to loathe driving that my long term plans include moving to a city where it's easier to get places by walking or riding a bike, possibly for this reason alone. Currently I live in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex, which I feel is one of the least walkable areas on the planet (though there are notable neighborhoods that provide exceptions). The metropolitan area has suffered badly from the urban sprawl blight, so if you're lucky enough to live with your romantic partner, chances are, at least one of you is going to have to deal with a commute. The course of my day starts off with a thirty minute drive, followed by sitting on my tush for the subsequent eight hours. Then I drive another forty-five minutes home. Unless I then drive to the nearest gym, which, due to the sprawl here, is likely to be more than six miles away, I'm pretty much stuck indoors again. Side note: a 117 degree heat index does not a happy human make. I have seen Texans drive to their mail box.

    The economic forces that drive sprawl really kill the cores of cities and make life miserable for commuters. My partner is burgeoning traffic engineer, and he's taught me some of the things that walkability projects can do to improve life for both residents and businesses in a city. Suburban Nation is an excellent read on the subject. You can also check out Walkscore to see how your neighborhood ranks. It's pretty neat stuff, and I wish more people would care about this issue.

    1. Re:Forget the health implications. by TeknoHog · · Score: 2, Funny

      The biggest sitting problem (for Americans, at least) outside of work is that our cities, our jobs, and even our recreation is not really intended for pedestrians.

      I think the biggest problem is that "pedestrian" is a bit like "pederast". I'll rather take the car than be confused with one of those.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:Forget the health implications. by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 1

      I'm fortunate to live in Helsinki, with one of the best public transportation systems in the world. I try to get around by bus/train/tram/metro and walk as much as I can. At work I also try to get up and walk around regularly, sometimes even resorting to joining the smokers outside in order to get out of the chair. (Not smoking, mind you.) At home, if we need something from the supermarket I often do that walking, I can easily carry 15-20 kg home, it's only about 700 meters.

      I have a firm belief that all these little bits and pieces of exercise add up. I might sit all day at work, but I make it a point to spend my other waking time sitting less. :)

      I've also taken up dancing, which both improves posture and impresses the opposite sex. Win-win. ;)

      --
      .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    3. Re:Forget the health implications. by robably · · Score: 1

      I imagine that for most of the Slashdot audience, sitting at work is often unavoidable

      Not necessarily - I had back problems a few years ago that made it painful to sit in a chair, but moving the chair to the side and just kneeling in front of the desk was fine. Your bum's the same height from the floor, your upper body in the same position it was with a chair - no new desk or extra equipment or expense required. Except; home was carpeted, work was shiny hard floors, so I got a gardener's kneeling mat for work, cost a fiver.

      I don't know if kneeling has the same health benefits as standing, but it feels healthier than sitting.

    4. Re:Forget the health implications. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can attest to that being able to walk around is very nice. I live in Stockholm, Sweden and I walk 15 minutes and take a 15 minute bus ride (standing, by preference) to work. Then I run along the shores for ~7 kilometres at lunch every other day or so, and take a walk after work. I am almost 30 years old and I have never felt the need to have a car or even a driver's license. You might like it here! http://international.stockholm.se/

    5. Re:Forget the health implications. by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's kind of why I'm not a driver - I don't want to be mistaken for a golf club.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    6. Re:Forget the health implications. by nu1x · · Score: 1

      Dunno about you dude, but I'd rather be mistaken for a golf club than a pederast.

      --
      I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
  66. Re: oblig smbc reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You realize you used the wrong comic, right? If you'd used xkcd you would instantly be modded up to +5 insightful.

  67. I don't understand... by Burnhard · · Score: 1

    I hate to skewer this research quite so comprehensively, but if I was about to die I would certainly want to have a little sit-down. Did they control for that?

  68. Did they control for suicide? by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

    Being trapped all day in a small grey box while click click clicking on things displayed on a smaller box has adverse health effects? But its so natural, what we evolved for. Not at all like being an animal in a cramped, sterile, never changing zoo environment, endlessly trying to find the door out that never appears.

  69. IF by WillyWanker · · Score: 1

    If this is true I should have been dead years ago.

    1. Re:IF by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Me too. I'm sedentary, eat lots of salty, fatty foods (yet somehow manage to not be over weight), drink way too much, I smoked cigarettes for 30 years, I've smoked pot since 1971, yet guys ten years my junior who do labor for a living (fresh air and exercise) look ten years older than me.

      Maybe it's because of genetics. My grandmother's doctor told her if she didn't cut down on the cholesterol she was going to die. Well, the doctor died. The next doctor told her the same thing, and he died, too. After outliving five more doctors who all told her the same thing, she finally died -- at age 99, after falling down and breaking her hip.

  70. Don't stand either... by guidryp · · Score: 1

    Long term standing creates a list of potential health issues as well (including increased risk for atherosclerosis) :

    http://www.cwhn.ca/en/node/40808

    The message is likely moderation in all things.

    1. Re:Don't stand either... by PPH · · Score: 1

      That settles it. I'm never getting out of bed!

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Don't stand either... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Our body, like Nancy Sinatra's boots, is made for walking and occasionally lying down. Anything else is suboptimal. The rate of our base evolution (of our physical abilities and gross characteristics) slowed dramatically when we discovered agriculture; we started evolving more for disease resistance and cooperation. It only seems like we're bad at these today because the bar continues to rise... or depending on where you're standing, of course.

      If you want to promote health, then walk as much as possible. Find a job that involves a lot of it, and this will probably do more for your overall health than anything else you can do, unless you're currently a crackhead.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  71. I will only really be concerned by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    if you eventually die anyway.

  72. Live forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I aim to live forever, or die trying.

  73. Re:To die? But not sooner? by dangitman · · Score: 1

    Wow. There is ANY percentage of people that are not likely to die?

    I think that it's the same percentage as there are women on slashdot.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  74. Re: oblig smbc reference by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

    That would have helped, but what really killed it was not making it a hyperlink. What do you expect me to do? Select the text, click Ctrl+C, followed by Ctrl+T, follwed by Ctrl+V, and then press enter? Some of us have shit to do!

    --
    Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
  75. Sitting Leads to Premature Death by Da+Cheez · · Score: 1

    Yes, but how likely are you to die prematurely if you NEVER SIT AT ALL?!

    Standing - The ultimate secret in attaining immortality....

    1. Re:Sitting Leads to Premature Death by baubo · · Score: 1

      Exactly! These folks who write this stuff appear to have forgotten the 100% likelihood of death for every human being on the planet. And if I were failing to sit more often, I would be 37% less likely to read these crap articles.

  76. So, what else to do other than sitting? by Psaakyrn · · Score: 2, Funny

    Other than sitting, standing, walking, and laying down, I can't really think of what else to do. Given 12 hours sleep and 3 hours sitting, that still leaves me with 9 hours of whatever. I can't really imagine why I'd need to stand or walk for more than 4 hours... Maybe I'll just go and lie down some more. That's still ok, right?

  77. I always thought my mom hated me... by camperx2k7 · · Score: 1

    When, as a kid, she'd call me in from playing for a "sit-down" dinner. Now I know I was right... She wanted me to "Eat, Sit and Die".

  78. So that's what happened to Elvis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So that's why Elvis died!

    Shoulda learned to stand and shit.

  79. Bad Study by b4upoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    School kids and college kids would be dropping like flies. They sit a lot.
                                  In older folks with medical issues sitting is a forced situation as death and infirmities tighten their grip. Yes, if you go in a nursing home it is hard to find many inmates that walk more than 30 minutes a day. Then again college students, in order to attend classes and do their studies, often sit more than ten hours a day.
                                  One wonders if these studies took age and illness into consideration? As a matter of fact young folks smart enough to go to college are not involved in active military service and spend less time on motorcycles and scuba diving etc.. I'll bet that non college young folks suffer far greater death rates and those who do not go to college probably stand a lot more hours each day. After all ditch digging offers little sitting time.

    1. Re: Bad Study by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      School kids and college kids would be dropping like flies.

      Why?

      They aren't saying "if you sit down for 6+ hours a day, you will die when you're 24!"
      They ARE saying, "if you sit down for 6+ hours a day, all other things being equal, you are xx% more likely to die earlier, than someone who is only sitting down for less than three hours a day."

      I'm not sure if I'm growing older and more bitter, or if people are getting stupider, but it seems as if people are getting stupider by the minute.

      A long time ago I thought up what I thought was a funny little wordplay ... now I'm starting to think it's true:

      We don't live in the 21st century - we live in the twenty second century

      The point being if something cannot be read or heard AND understood in 20 seconds or less, we don't care, and will make our own wild assumptions about what is true, even if it flies in the face of logic.

    2. Re: Bad Study by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      School kids and college kids would be dropping like flies. They sit a lot.

      Not necessarily. It depends on what actually causes the increase in mortality. If it's something like increased risk of blood clots - quite plausible in my mind - then you're not going to see much of that in younger folks. I'd be interested in knowing whether the statistics show some specific causes of death that become more common with a sedentary lifestyle, and if it's a cumulative effect or not. That is, does spending a lot of time sitting as a young person decrease my lifespan even if I radically change my lifestyle later on to become much more active as compared to if I had never been sedentary, or is it a more acute risk factor, pointing to something like the blood clotting I mentioned.

    3. Re: Bad Study by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      tl;dr

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
  80. Meaningless Statistics by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

    the researchers found that women who sit more than 6 hours a day were 37 percent more likely to die than those who sit less than 3 hours; for men, long-sitters were 17 percent more likely to die.

    They are X percent more likely to die (in what time frame), (than who), (than what)? These statistics are meaningless. You are 90 percent more likely to be dumber after reading this / . submission.

    --
    That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  81. I should already be dead by SilverJets · · Score: 1

    If I added up all the things I do that make me more likely to die, I should already be dead. Guess I'm beating the odds! Time to play the lottery.

  82. Lie, damn lies and statistics by cherokee158 · · Score: 1

    Worst case scenario: If you are a middle-aged man who spends all of your leisure time loafing, your chances of dying increase by half. That sounds awful, but the fact is that the average American 40-year-old male has about two or three-tenths of one percent chance of dying within the next year from any cause. So your chances of dying this year if you have been laying around a lot would increase to nearly half of one percent, or about 200 to 1.

    You are equally as likely to roll an honest 18 using 3d6.

    If you've played D&D, you know how many rolls that can take.

    By the time you hit your eighties, though, I'd recommend wearing out that walker...could be the difference between snake eyes and a coin flip.

    1. Re:Lie, damn lies and statistics by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I saw another geezer study last year, looking at 60-90 year olds. They fond that every single subject who could walk 1/4 mile (~1/2 km) was still alive five years later. I don't remember what percentage of those who couldn't were dead.

  83. It all makes sense now by DigitalReverend · · Score: 1

    I finally understand why my dad was always telling my mom to sit down.

    --
    I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
  84. Re:Hmm.. stats don't lie by captainlavender · · Score: 1

    "I plan to live forever. So far, so good." -Woody Allen

  85. more specific cause by tverbeek · · Score: 1

    It's what I do while sitting that reduces my lifespan. Hint: I sit down for my job.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  86. Maybe its about skills.. by David_Hart · · Score: 1

    Perhaps people would sit more often are more likely to die sooner because when they do participate in activity they go all out and overdo it. Like everyone here, I work in IT (big surprise). I usually take two weeks off during the summer to hang out at the family camp on a lake. It usually takes me a week to get acclimatized to swimming a couple of times every day (I really need to get a house with a pool, but I digress), running around playing with my nephews, etc. I also find that, because there are few flat surfaces around the camp, that my balance is strengthened. By the end of the two weeks I am back to being able to run through the woods without tripping and to jump from rock to rock at full speed along the shore.

    I guess the point that I am trying to make is that people who sit a lot are usually in a bubble. When they do participate in activiities, they get in over their heads. I'm curious if the researchers looked at the cause of death for groups with higher rates. I'm thinking that there may be a larger percentage related to accidents for those sitting for a long time vs those that are more active.

    I do think that there are so many variables over and above those discussed in the article that a closer look would be required before drawing any life changing conclusions.

    David

  87. outdoor vs indoor sitting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i would like to see this study comparing people sitting indoors vs outdoors,maybe it has to do with ppl being locked up in a basement somewhere with poor air quality, lack of sunlight, etc

  88. I'm standing. I'm gonna live forever... by wombat1966 · · Score: 1

    I hate to bust his bubble, but everyone has a 100% risk of dying. Think he left out some important details there. Pam http://www.corporatehealthlink.com/

  89. How about the original Article by DFurno2003 · · Score: 0

    Here: http://pressroom.cancer.org/index.php?s=43&item=257 Saving lives by helping people stay well, get well, find cures, & fight back Study Links More Time Spent Sitting to Higher Risk of Death Risk Found to Be Independent of Physical Activity Level A new study from American Cancer Society researchers finds it’s not just how much physical activity you get, but how much time you spend sitting that can affect your risk of death. Researchers say time spent sitting was independently associated with total mortality, regardless of physical activity level. They conclude that public health messages should promote both being physically active and reducing time spent sitting. The study appears early online in the American Journal of Epidemiology. Increasing obesity levels in the United States are widely predicted to have major public health consequences. A growing epidemic of overweight and obesity has been attributed in part to reduced overall physical activity. And while several studies support a link between sitting time and obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease risk factors (11, 16, 17), and unhealthy dietary patterns in children and adults (18–20), very few studies have examined time spent sitting in relation to total mortality (21–23). Thus, public health guidelines focus largely on increasing physical activity with little or no reference to reducing time spent sitting. To explore the association between sitting time and mortality, researchers led by Alpa Patel, Ph.D. analyzed survey responses from 123,216 individuals (53,440 men and 69,776 women) who had no history of cancer, heart attack, stroke, or emphysema/other lung disease enrolled in the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Prevention II study in 1992. They examined the amount of time spent sitting and physical activity in relation to mortality between 1993 and 2006. They found that more leisure time spent sitting was associated with higher risk of mortality, particularly in women. Women who reported more than six hours per day of sitting were 37 percent more likely to die during the time period studied than those who sat fewer than 3 hours a day. Men who sat more than 6 hours a day were 18 percent more likely to die than those who sat fewer than 3 hours per day. The association remained virtually unchanged after adjusting for physical activity level. Associations were stronger for cardiovascular disease mortality than for cancer mortality. When combined with a lack of physical activity, the association was even stronger. Women and men who both sat more and were less physically were 94% and 48% more likely, respectively, to die compared with those who reported sitting the least and being most active. “Several factors could explain the positive association between time spent sitting and higher all-cause death rates,” said Dr. Patel. “Prolonged time spent sitting, independent of physical activity, has been shown to have important metabolic consequences, and may influence things like triglycerides, high density lipoprotein, cholesterol, fasting plasma glucose, resting blood pressure, and leptin, which are biomarkers of obesity and cardiovascular and other chronic diseases.” The authors conclude that “public health messages and guidelines should be refined to include reducing time spent sitting in addition to promoting physical activity. Because a sizeable fraction of the population spends much of their time sitting, it is beneficial to encourage sedentary individuals to stand up and walk around as well as to reach optimal levels of physical activity.” Article: “Leisure Time Spent Sitting in Relation to Total Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of US Adults.” Alpa V. Patel, Leslie Bernstein, Anusila Deka, Heather Spencer Feigelson, Peter T. Campbell, 5 Susan M. Gapstur, Graham A. Colditz, and Michael J. Thun. Am J Epid Published online July 22, 2010 (DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq155)

    1. Re:How about the original Article by DFurno2003 · · Score: 0

      Sorry about the Wall of text

  90. Who are all these people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How on earth can you sit for less than six hours a day if you have a desk job?

    Does this study count laying down as sitting? I just don't get it. Where are all these people who spend 7 out of their 13 to 14 waking hours on their feet?

  91. What was this thing designed to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What were our bodies designed to do? I think it's pretty obvious. We're hunter-gatherers.

    Step 1, get rid of mouse and keyboard. For the guys, large pointing device. Enter data by stabbing wall with it. For women, enter data by pulling things out of the floor.

    In both cases, we don't sit. We stand and throw, or stand and squat or bend over.

    Come on now. Forget the foozball table. I want to work in an office with spears and women bending over and pulling strings on the floor all day. It'll be healthy. Productive? Who cares. Women bending over and pulling strings on the floor all day...

  92. That explains the tingling in my left arm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alallalalalal

  93. Treadmill while using a computer is best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I once rode a stationary bicycle for about 3 hours a day but I noticed I started getting a rash from
    sitting in my own sweaty clothes, so I switched to a treadmill with a desktop. Now I'm having issues
    with veins around my ankles and some minor joint pain. I'm looking at the culprit of over-aging
    to be more an issue of gravitational stressors. When an infant is in a mother's womb, the amniotic fluid
    equally balances the infant in a comfortable pressure-less environment; what if the babe never was birthed
    from the womb and stayed in such an environment all the life? That should be explored more, because
    perhaps the key to balancing the body's stress would be more to one of those space-training devices where
    you are strapped into the middle of three rings and you use your liening to gyroscopically rotate your
    body to any orientation contrary to gravity; this is better than living in zero-gravity because it lets
    you simply change the gravitational pull to another region of your body whereas asstronaughts simply lose
    all the benefits of gravity.

  94. Old study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This relates to an old study where it was proven, sitting for long periods of time creates blood clots.

    So after the said clot gets stuck in the cardiovascular system, people die.

  95. Sitting pools, pinches lympnode channels, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to mention, weight-gain is somehow related to whichever regions of your body are under pressure; I know
    some people get more of their heavy-metal deposits on their ass when they are known to sit longer.

  96. Re:Hmm.. stats don't lie by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    "Quit slobbering on me you old fossil" -Soon Yi

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  97. The other 63% of women... by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 1

    ...apparently just live forever. Likewise for men.

  98. Statistics and the original report by definate · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here is the original report: Leisure Time Spent Sitting in Relation to Total Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of US Adults

    Such large sample sizes scare me. When you've got 100,000 data points, almost anything seems statistically significant.

    Having a look at the abstract of the page "Leisure Time Spent Sitting in Relation to Total Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of US Adults", I am not sure about some of this... After reading that, I got more interested in it and just got the original article, though that doesn't help much, it's missing a lot of summary data, none the less...

    • The results were via questionnaire, my guess is that people who believe they are more healthy, would underestimate the amount they sit, and people who don't, might overestimate it.
    • 50% to 73% of the people who answered these questionnaires were "Retired/homemaker" with the mean age being 63.6 (standard deviation, 6) for me, and 61.9 (standard deviation, 6.5) for women. This was when they enrolled in the study in 1992, making them on average 77.6 for men, and 75.9 for women. For comparison look at the life expectancy data for people born in those years, this puts them firmly in the timespan where they were expected to die.
    • Looking at the mean ages, there is a correlation between hours sat per day, and mean age. So those who are apart of the group who sits more, are also those who are oldest.
    • On the mens side 52% to 57% are former smokers. On the womens side 48% to 60% never smoked, which might be correct for that generation but I am uncertain. Though they have corrected for this, I wonder how they corrected, and if that correction is legitimate.
    • There appears to be an abnormally large amount of people who have NEVER consumed alcohol for women that's 44% to 47%, and for me that's 31% to 32%. This seems amazing of this sample, since I don't drink, and everyone points out how weird it is.
    • This sample group was obtained from participants in the American Cancer Society's CPS-II Nutrition Cohort, as such the sample might over represent people worried about cancer and similar illnesses because they have higher instances of it in their family. They had people report their personal history to control for some of these things, but not their family history.

    Additionally I would really need to get into their statistical method more, and get their original data, as it looks like there could be many more problems.

    I would take this study, with a fuck load of salt.

    --
    This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Statistics and the original report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so about 10ccs worth of salt then?

    2. Re:Statistics and the original report by definate · · Score: 1

      STAT!

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  99. You know? by VegetaFH1 · · Score: 1

    "Statistics show that 90% of statistics are statisticaly wrong" Quoting someone who i cant remember who...

  100. Re: Guess I'd better get off my ass and... by Fancy+Llama · · Score: 1
    --
    "I wasn't kissing her, I was whispering in her mouth." ~ Chico Marx
  101. How about lying down? by robi5 · · Score: 1

    The question is if sitting causes problems or a sedentary positiin in general. Sitting is not natural while standing, walking and lying is (esp. when sleeping)

  102. Don't sit by BananaPeel · · Score: 1

    I sit at work then used to come home and sit, it sucked, I was beginning to feel crap.. So built a treadmill workstation at home...I wish I had done this years ago.

    Bought a second hand tread mill from ebay, used a lifefitness st55 put a shelf behind it to hold the PC and monitors and a simple shelf across the handles for keyboard.

    Typing gets a bit jittery over 5kph on a 4% incline but below that its fine. You get a reasonable amount of exercise or even a good workout and still do all the stuff you would have otherwise done sitting down.

    Really if you have been thinking about doing this just do it...

    Now I just have to persuade them to let me have one at work.

  103. challenging death by epine · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Rarely has the geek factor at Slashdot been so painfully evident. No matter how relevant the topic, a superficial stupidity in the summary text reduces this place to a tribe of impulse-challenged baboons trading shallow bon mots like a feces fight.

    Quoted at Stress : The Frontal Cortex:

    "One of the first things I discovered was that I didn't like baboons very much," he says. "They're quite awful to one another, constantly scheming and backstabbing. They're like chimps but without the self-control."

    Troglodytes in the high art of back-stabbing, as Sapolsky humorously demonstrates with his own poison pen:

    [Old Testament nicknames] was a way of rebelling against his childhood Hebrew school teachers, who rejected the blasphemy of Darwinian evolution. "I couldn't wait for the day that I could record in my notebook that Nebuchanezzar and Naomi were off screwing in the bushes," Sapolsky wrote in A Primate's Memoir. "It felt like a pleasing revenge."

    Bezos' grandfather had something useful to say about cleverness at the expense of what matters:
    Bezos at Princeton

    Almost every society mentioned in Buettner's study of longevity move around a lot:
    Dan Buettner: How to live to be 100+

    Here we are hunched over our keyboards having a feces fight about the semantics of immortality rather than thinking about major life choices. If a computer programmer's office chair was a protein complex, there would be a conjugate protein that binds the chair and expired occupant into a handy burial pod that can be rolled (rather than wheeled) out of the room.

    With rare exceptions, you don't see death sitting down on the job all that often. Here's another obligatory Ted link:
    Challenging Death

    I had completely forgotten the cape wipe. Nice touch in the editing room.

    This sad display leaves me contemplating an update to the video tombstone memorial from Atom Egoyan's "Speaking Parts" with the text of "last post" and "last tweet" added automatically to the rolling feed by the web-scrapers of omniscience. Even St Peter has an iPad these days to assist in the great summing up.

  104. Hehe! by flinkflonk · · Score: 1

    Can't wait to tell my wife - "You know, they found out sitting down all day makes you die sooner - I think I'll lie down for the rest of the day".

    No, seriously (or rather a bit more serious, but not really), life is lethal. Nobody has ever survived life. Think about it...

  105. I'm going to die by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    If this is true, I must have a severe risk of dying. I sit around twelve hours a day, or so. Damn!

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  106. Re:To die? But not sooner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is, but it is a very very low percentage since "there can be only one".

  107. Re:Hmm.. stats don't lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's incredible. If we look at the people who lived 200 years ago we find that all of them are dead. That means we have gone from a 100% mortality rate to only 93% in just 200 years. At this rate future generations will surely be immortal.

  108. I knew you were killing me slashdot! by w0mprat · · Score: 3, Funny

    But now it's confirmed.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    1. Re:I knew you were killing me slashdot! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      I'll wait for NetCraft thank you very much!

  109. I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is very unlikely that you would die by being sitted.
    On the other hand if you are moving, there's much chances that something could happen to you like being run by a car or something similar
    So I prefer to sit longer cause it's safer

  110. endigolabs.co.cc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good info friends! thanks 4 sharing! :) :D ^^ :P

  111. Re:Hmm.. stats don't lie by armyofone · · Score: 1

    Holy Crap! Who comes up with these estimates anyway? I mean, that's a swing of 114,999,999,900!!

    Wonder what the odds are that the true number lies somewhere outside that range? ;-p

    --
    "A revolution without dancing is... a revolution not worth having"
  112. This is just biased by Tasha26 · · Score: 1

    How else am I supposed to pee? And u say this will add to my sitting-down time? Rubbish, women outlive men anyway.

    1. Re:This is just biased by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Men's life expectancy is catching up with women's, and men used to (on average) live longer than women. The reason was so many women dying in childbirth, while these days few women die from childbirth in the developed world.

      In the 20th century, a woman's life expectancy was greater than a man's because generally women stayed home and men worked dangerous, dirty jobs. Most men who don't die of natural causes die on the job. But these days, most women work outside the home, and take on mostly the same jobs as men. Men aren't living longer (well maybe, workplaces are getting safer), women are dying younger.

      I don't think that five minutes sitting on the can is going to raise your odds of dying. More likely that six hours straight sitting at a desk is what will do it. But if it woorys you, you can do like the asians do -- get rid of the toilet and squat over the hole.

  113. Awesome suicide method! by IllusionalForce · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's all just sit here all day. We're gonna die anyway, so we might as well abuse it. Don't feel like living? Just sit here and play NetHack!

    1. Re:Awesome suicide method! by neminem · · Score: 1

      It's true... playing Nethack does lead to dying... over and over and over again.

  114. Re: oblig smbc reference by instagib · · Score: 1

    I just double-click on it. It works because I have Linkification installed.

  115. Summary by cpscotti · · Score: 1

    "People who exercise regularly had a lower risk, but still significant, risk of dying"

    I think the writer got scared about being sitting for so long and decided to write in a fucking hurry(to get out walking and standing asap)! Isn't the "Preview->Read-What-You-Have-Written->???->Profit" policy enforced for this guys?!
    Or was he so emphatic on the "risk" itself that he decided to use that word way more then necessary!?

  116. Umm by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    the more obese or otherwise unhealthy you already are, the more likely you'll sit as often and as long as possible.

  117. Saving women's lives everyday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    women who sit more than 6 hours a day were 37 percent more likely to die than those who sit less than 3 hours;

    "John, you bastard! I caught you sleeping with the women down the street! I saw you to together!"

    "No honey! Its not what you think! Did you notice she was on her back? You see, she sits for long periods of time every day. Because I was exercising her, on her back without her sitting, I was saving her live, one stroke at a time."

    "Oh John, why did I doubt you? You're so considerate and giving. Always thinking of others. You finally found a way to make your restless penis syndrome beneficial to others. Now come here and save me life!"

  118. chattafuup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are all at a 100% chance of dying, a simple fact of life.

  119. Biking requires to be sit down for long periods... by raguirre · · Score: 1

    Is it killing me or protecting me?

  120. Agree! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I agree, also there is something strange that happens to the body in this position, over the years of sitting in that way, not only does the bumb shape change and get more broad to flatten out over a wider area, as when you leave a balloon sitting in a corner, it does not keep its round shape, but also a curvature of the spine happens in such a way that matches the molding of the chair, fitting the form exactly, so that when you stand up, you still look like you are sitting down (recliners especially)....I have started to get up more often to move around for any excuses to get out of this habit...but we are limited as to how much of this we can do when we are supposed to be actively working away at our desk.

  121. Exercise...bah by Danathar · · Score: 1

    Look, your heart beats x amount of beats in a lifetime. The number is fixed but unknown. Increasing one's heart rate only lessens the time to that last heart beat, so we should work to SLOW our heart rate and not increase it....

  122. What about lying down? by dsmoses · · Score: 1

    That's it, no more sleeping for me! If sitting down is this disastrous, imagine how evil lying down is...

  123. More Research is Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The New York Times had a good article about this very same subject back in January. Its title was: Too Much Sitting Shortens Lives, Study Suggests. This was done using a study of 8,800 adults for a period of six years. The risks were a lot lower in that study though.

    In my opinion, more research is needed. Also, the other side of the argument has to be studied. How does remaining on your feet for 6 hours or more affect your health? I used to teach back in 2004 and it sometimes required me to stand for long periods of time lecturing. After a long day standing, pains all over your body start to surface. One of my coworkers developed back pains that needed surgery. My wife's work right now requires her to be on her feet for long periods of time. She was complaining of knee pains last weekend to the point that she was having trouble walking. Anything in excess if bad.

  124. Oh... by Jetrel · · Score: 1

    Man I am glad I was sitting down when I read this! Sheesh...

    --
    If it isn't broke, tinker with it till it is!
  125. This just in... by turthalion · · Score: 1

    This news just in... reading too many studies in the "American Journal of Epidemiology" will give you stress and kill you.

    --
    Michael Coyne
    http://turthalion.blogspot.com
  126. Death By Piles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

  127. Re:Hmm.. stats don't lie by mr_gorkajuice · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure the true number doesn't lie *below* the range.

  128. O rly? by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1

    The tell that to Vladimir Horowitz and basically dozens of other classical pianists who spent most of their lives sleeping or sitting down and died on their 80s and 90s.

    Fuckin' phony research for the sake of giving out paychecks to mediocre 'scientists'.

    --
    Send your spendthrift head of state this
  129. I think I'll go for a walk.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't died.

    You're not fooling anyone, you know.

  130. Eat right. Exercise. Die Anyway.Eat right. Exercis by aoshi73 · · Score: 1

    It seems that whatever you do, you will end up dead anyway. In the immortal words of the great 'Fight Club' fighter Jack: "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."

    --
    http://nyewin.org http://nyexug.com http://nycsqlusergroup.com http://nylug.org
  131. Re:Hmm.. stats don't lie by BobearQSI · · Score: 1

    However, if you look back at the history of the numbers, it is converging to 100% at infinity. You may be beating the odds now, but the longer you live, the more likely you are to die.

  132. The first casualty by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

    If I have learned anything from television, it's that Drew Carey will be the first victim of sitting-around-doing-nothing related death.