Slashdot Mirror


Prolonged Sitting and Poor Sleep Can Work Together To Shorten Your Life (latimes.com)

schwit1 sends word that a new study published in PLOS Medicine has examined how lifestyle risk factors can affect mortality rates, both alone and in combination with each other. Having a single major risk factor increased mortality rates slightly, but the study found that those who report multiple risk factors are significantly more likely to die early. While this includes obvious behavior like smoking and alcohol consumption, the findings also suggest prolonged sitting and unhealthy sleep patterns can strongly increase mortality rates when combined with each other, or with the obvious behaviors. "Some combinations were more deadly than others, the researchers found. Those who blended insufficient exercise with prolonged sitting were 2.42 times more likely to die during the study, and those who were also guilty of sleeping for too many hours were 4.23 times more likely die by the time the study ended. 'These findings suggest there is a "synergistic effect" among risk factors,' the study authors wrote."

115 comments

  1. Sleeping too FEW hours by roman_mir · · Score: 0

    Not too many, too few hours. Goddamn, one thing is when /. readers don't look at TFA, but goddamn editors not giving a shit is another thing altogether.

    1. Re:Sleeping too FEW hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, RTFA, too much sleep (more than nine hours) is seen as unhealthy too.

    2. Re:Sleeping too FEW hours by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, RTFA, too much sleep (more than nine hours) is seen as unhealthy too.

      Or maybe sick people sleep a lot. It is likely the causation is the other way around. While TFA is quick to say that the sleeping causes the deaths, the study itself only says they are "associated".

    3. Re:Sleeping too FEW hours by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The editors were getting the articles mixed up. "Sleeping too many hours a night" belonged to the previous article.

    4. Re:Sleeping too FEW hours by MrKaos · · Score: 0

      No, RTFA, too much sleep (more than nine hours) is seen as unhealthy too.

      Or maybe sick people sleep a lot. It is likely the causation is the other way around. While TFA is quick to say that the sleeping causes the deaths, the study itself only says they are "associated".

      I sit myself when I read the study.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    5. Re:Sleeping too FEW hours by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, RTFA, too much sleep (more than nine hours) is seen as unhealthy too.

      Or maybe sick people sleep a lot. It is likely the causation is the other way around. While TFA is quick to say that the sleeping causes the deaths, the study itself only says they are "associated".

      Actually, the STUDY explicitly says exactly what you just did about causation. From the Discussion section:

      It is biologically plausible that short sleep duration may increase mortality risk through adverse endocrinologic, immunologic, and metabolic effects [48,49,50] or through chronic inflammation [47,51,52]. The mechanism for the association between long sleep duration and mortality is not well understood [17,47]. Most studies suggest that long sleep duration tends to be associated with sleep fragmentation, fatigue, depression, and underlying disease and poor health [53]. Therefore, the observed association between long sleep duration and all-cause mortality could be due to "reverse causality" or residual confounding [17,54]. An interesting observation from the current study is that risk combinations involving long sleep duration, prolonged sitting, and/or physical inactivity tended to be among those with the strongest associations with mortality, with HRs ranging from 2 to above 4. These associations remained significant and of similar magnitude after excluding deaths within the first 2 y of follow-up (S2 Table). This may suggest that the underlying characteristics associated with such behavioral patterns involving long sleep, sedentariness, and inactivity, perhaps not limited to major occult disease or failing health, may have contributed to the elevated risk for morality.

      And they also note a few other things, like the fact that the "long sleep" problem tends to be a better marker for bad things with older people. This study didn't control for the fact that older people tend to sleep less or at least have trouble sleeping in longer blocks (compared to younger people). So it makes some intuitive sense that when you have an older person who also sleeps really long, it may be associated with some other problem (depression, disease, etc.), which is more likely to lead to a greater mortality.

    6. Re:Sleeping too FEW hours by retroworks · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Mod this one up, and the previous ones down please.

      "Hey, I know about sleep and sitting, I don't need to RTFA... I'll assume it's a correlation /= causation fallacy and get frist pots!"

      --
      Gently reply
    7. Re:Sleeping too FEW hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing an "h."

    8. Re:Sleeping too FEW hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how all the long sleepers are contorting to find an explanation for the increased mortality that doesn't apply to them.

    9. Re: Sleeping too FEW hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woos

    10. Re:Sleeping too FEW hours by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      While TFA is quick to say that the sleeping causes the deaths, the study itself only says they are "associated".

      Fact: Breathing causes death. Proof: 100% of all dead people were habitual breathers.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    11. Re:Sleeping too FEW hours by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      "And they also note a few other things, like the fact that the "long sleep" problem tends to be a better marker for bad things with older people. This study didn't control for the fact that older people tend to sleep less or at least have trouble sleeping in longer blocks (compared to younger people). So it makes some intuitive sense that when you have an older person who also sleeps really long, it may be associated with some other problem (depression, disease, etc.), which is more likely to lead to a greater mortality."

      They'd probably need to control for the fact that older people tend to sleep less because they need to pee more frequently.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    12. Re:Sleeping too FEW hours by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      whoa, tough crowd

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    13. Re:Sleeping too FEW hours by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      However, about 7% of all human breathers have not died. That means that the death connection isn't statistically significant by the usual standards.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re:Sleeping too FEW hours by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I would conjecture that sleep slooowsss down circulation, and aids in clogging arteries. And the slowing down lowers blood pressure, allowing arteries to contract. These two cumulative actions take place over many years

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  2. Enuf! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I'm sick and tired of people telling me not to get sick and tired!

  3. Correlation != causation by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Insightful
    In all probability, people sleeping far too little or far too much are probably already sick. Similarly, people who spend a lot of time sitting may well do so because they have limited ability to exercise due to other health problems.

    The medical profession has a problem understanding the difference between correlation and causation, and this is just one example of it.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    1. Re:Correlation != causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all probability, people sleeping far too little or far too much are probably already sick. Similarly, people who spend a lot of time sitting may well do so because they have limited ability to exercise due to other health problems.

      When describing all of the waiver scenarios, you kind of forgot to mention that 90% demographic who are simply too fucking lazy to get off their ass and exercise in order to help counteract the 4,000 calories they're shoving in their face every day.

      The medical profession has a problem understanding the difference between correlation and causation, and this is just one example of it.

      The medical profession is a multi-trillion dollar capitalist industry. It's an entire industry in itself. And the only "problem" they're trying to solve for is revenue. Wake up.

    2. Re:Correlation != causation by jandersen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By the same token, you don't get fat by eating too much - you eat too much because being fat makes you do it, right? It is correct that correlation is not proof of causation; but it narrows the choices down - correlation means things are connected, one way or the other. Either one causes the other, or they share a root cause. Which one you decide to go with is up to your own judgement - considering what we already know about things like the harmful effects of stress and the benefits of exercise, I would say it is more plausible that avoiding sitting down is better for your health, and that getting a good night's sleep is essential in avoiding stress - the reason for the latter being that if you feel tired due to lack of sleep, you are less able to cope with problems (which makes you feel stressed out) and you try to compensate by eating energy rich food (=too many calories, especially sugar) and drinking beverages with caffeine, which tend to ruin your sleep.

      Could there be causation in the opposite direction? No doubt - but I think it mostly goes the other way.

    3. Re:Correlation != causation by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, fat is implicated in increased hunger by numerous studies.

      " Scientists from the Lawson Health Research Institute (part of the University of Western Ontario) believe that they have found the reason that people with extra belly fat are hungrier than others. According to their study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), fat cells around the abdomen produce an appetite-inducing hormone known as Neuropeptide Y (NPY)."

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    4. Re:Correlation != causation by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      correlation means things are connected, one way or the other. Either one causes the other, or they share a root cause.

      Nope. Sometimes it's just down to coincidence.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Correlation != causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      From a statistics textbook:

      In all probability, people sleeping far too little or far too much are probably already sick. Similarly, people who spend a lot of time sitting may well do so because they have limited ability to exercise due to other health problems.

      From reality: Sitting on your ass eating garbage food, drinking booze and suffering from sleep problems because of your lifestyle isn't healthy!

    6. Re:Correlation != causation by martyros · · Score: 1

      Similarly, people who spend a lot of time sitting may well do so because they have limited ability to exercise due to other health problems.

      Yeah, the first thing I thought was, "Well, maybe the more unhappy your life is, the more of these kinds of behaviors you're likely to engage in."

      If you find that A and B are correlated, you have to ask if A caused B, or B caused A, or if there's a third thing C, which is causing both B and A. Either being chronically unhappy, or being ill, are things which could both 1) make it more likely for people to have these behaviors, and 2) make them more likely to die.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    7. Re:Correlation != causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When describing all of the waiver scenarios, you kind of forgot to mention that 90% demographic who are simply too fucking lazy to get off their ass and exercise in order to help counteract the 4,000 calories they're shoving in their face every day."

      It is kilo calories, you are of by a factor 1000. The intakes for women and men is 2M/2000k/2000000 cal. and 2.5M/2500k/2500000 cal. resp. Only 4000/4k/0.4M cal. is good for losing mass really fast.

    8. Re:Correlation != causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Please shut the fuck up. Jesus, it's like you asshole only get up in the morning to tell everyone else how they are wrong about everything ever. And you trot out the "correlation is not causation" bullshit like it's the holy fucking Bible. You're bad as those douchebags that trot out "PJ AT GROKLAW!!!" every time a court is mentioned. You're like,"Hey! Pay attention to me! I am a fucking twat on the Internet and I have my own nerd lawyer!!! Pay attention to me!" Seriously. Just shut the fuck up.

    9. Re:Correlation != causation by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      Ever known anyone who had to take steroids (not the anabolic kind) on a long-term basis? They all gain fat in a very specific pattern - their face and shoulders, as well as their abdomens. So yes, if your hormonal signals cause your body to store massive amounts of energy as fat, you will have to choose between being chronically energy-deprived (i.e., hungry all the time) and eating a lot more.

    10. Re:Correlation != causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but in US, they've ommited the kilo, because they think it's about illegal drugs.

    11. Re:Correlation != causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correlation != causation

      How trite.

      Care to tell us how causation is ever determined if it's not connected to some correlation?

      You're about as deep as an August parking lot puddle in a dilapidated Florida strip mall.

    12. Re:Correlation != causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Appetite and hunger are not the same thing. As a guy who's well off his doctor's BMI chart I can tell you that I have a large appetite but I honestly can't remember the last time I felt actual hunger. Once you start to understand these dynamics of the problem it's easier to come to terms with what you're doing wrong.

    13. Re:Correlation != causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      cravings, blood sugar, hormones, biological stressors, emotional stressors, diet (high fat, low fat, carb)

      complex problems = hard solutions, but thanks for playing

    14. Re:Correlation != causation by nbauman · · Score: 1

      By randomized, controlled studies.

    15. Re:Correlation != causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When describing all of the waiver scenarios, you kind of forgot to mention that 90% demographic who are simply too fucking lazy to get off their ass and exercise in order to help counteract the 4,000 calories they're shoving in their face every day.

      From how far up your ass did you pull that number from? I could see some people overeating to 3,000 on occasion but you'd have to be going out of your way to hit 4,000 a day. At that rate you'd be gaining a few pounds a week.

    16. Re:Correlation != causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir can you explain why you have 3000 kilocalaries of little debbies in your trunk. And what exactly are you planning to do with 10,000 kilocalories of big macs. You were intending to distribute weren't you.

      Sir, I am going to have to place you under arrest for the possession with intent to sell junk food. You're going away for a long time.

    17. Re:Correlation != causation by nbauman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You beat me to it.

      Citation needed.

      http://www.healthnewsreview.or...

      "Frequent fish consumption was associated with a 50% reduction in the relative risk of dying from a heart attack." Her editor's reaction? Slash. Too wordy, too passive. The editor's rewrite? "Women who ate fish five times a week cut their risk of dying later from a heart attack by half."

        https://www.elsevier.com/conne...

    18. Re:Correlation != causation by nbauman · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when you adapt computerized records in medical practice using more money than brains, as we do here in the U.S.

      You quickly get huge databases of patients. Any medical resident looking for a cheap, easy journal publication can take a medical record database, run some standard statistical packages, and spit out correlations at p LT 0.05. https://xkcd.com/882/

      Then they say, "Our statistical software https://blog.stackoverflow.com... corrected for cigarette smoking and every other known factor, and we're left with this correlation."

      I'm dismayed that so many people don't understand this simple distinction, which has caused so much damage.

      For example, the Nurses' Health Study found out that post-menopausal women who took hormone replacement drugs were less likely to have heart disease. The drug companies used this in a classic marketing campaign to sell hormone replacement drugs to post-menopausal women.

      Then it turned out that hormone replacement drugs caused more breast cancer. This was responsible for a major uptick (epidemic) of breast cancer in the US. The correlation was spurious because some women tried to have healthy behaviors -- diet, exercise, weight loss, and hormone replacement drugs in the mistaken belief that the drugs were "healthy".

      So you can expect a lot more studies and news stories like this in the future.

    19. Re:Correlation != causation by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it's just down to coincidence

      Sometimes - but pure coincidence, or chance, is not likely to be persistent. It's like rolling dice: you may get a series of sexes, but if it goes on indefinitely, then the suspicion must be that there is something dodgy going on.

    20. Re:Correlation != causation by sjames · · Score: 1

      People sleeping too long probably have an underlying condition. People sleeping too little probably have an alarm clock and a screwed up work-life balance.

      As for exercise, they may have an underlying condition or it may be that work-life balance thing again.

    21. Re:Correlation != causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding. I'm an avid triathlete and some workout days I burn an extra 1500 kCals pretty easily. Eating 4000 kCals - of the right foods, anyway, especially protein - is really difficult to do because it is simply *so much food.*

    22. Re:Correlation != causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normally, increased fat deposits decreases the duration of the hunger signal - it secretes an appetite suppressing hormone.

      But, because like in many cases in biology, there are exceptions, high levels of insulin suppresses this signal, and renders the brain much less sensitive to it. This is a natural mechanism which allows animals, including humans, to gain weight in certain contexts, like when they're growing up, or when they're pregnant or lactating.

      What do most obese people have in common ?

      Increased secretion of insulin, brought on loss of insulin sensitivity, often due to excessive consumption of carbohydrates combined with sedentary lifestyle.

      Insulin has two complementary roles in the body's biochemistry : to suppress the hunger signal so that you eat more, and to tip your energy balance towards storing fat rather than using it for energy. Cut off insulin production, and your obese person will shed the pounds without doing any diet whatsoever - that is what used to happen (with severe side-effects, of course) to type I diabetes sufferers before they could treat themselves with insulin.

      So what happens when that hyperinsulinemic obese person diets ?

      Hunger signal increases, energy expenditure goes down, because their brain has trouble detecting the hunger suppressing signal due to insulin, and that signal gets weaker as the fat deposits shrink.

      That's why diets are difficult, and why their effect is strictly temporary in 99.9% of cases - ignoring such a primal signal as hunger is difficult, and temporary.
       

    23. Re:Correlation != causation by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      This is the kind of thing that makes many people to be skeptical of "scientific" findings, or when people claim "the science is settled".

      Please don't take that as an opportunity to jump on my comment as if I'm a "denier". I'm not. But, I have lost some faith in peer review because many experimental claims seem to be getting taken as fact without further verification. Repeatable results matter, but nobody gets funded to recreate results because there's no glory in it.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    24. Re:Correlation != causation by matthewv789 · · Score: 1

      That is probably true, but note that fat in the body is NOT the same thing as fat in the diet. (This is the fallacy that's led to decades of bad nutritional advice, leading to an increase in the very problems it was trying to solve.)

    25. Re:Correlation != causation by mwehle · · Score: 2

      Sometimes - but pure coincidence, or chance, is not likely to be persistent. It's like rolling dice: you may get a series of sexes, but if it goes on indefinitely, then the suspicion must be that there is something dodgy going on.

      You know, if I roll dice and get a series of sexes I'm going to conclude something dodgy is going on right there - no need for persistence.

      --
      Wir sind geboren, um frei zu sein - Rio Reiser
    26. Re:Correlation != causation by grumling · · Score: 1

      A Whopper with cheese is 730 calories. Add a "medium" fry @ 410 and a "medium" Coke @ 290 and the value meal weighs in at 1430 Kcal. That's one meal.
      https://www.bk.com/pdfs/nutrit...

      Never mind snacks (Doritos are 140 Kcal/oz, a 12 oz bag is easily eaten in one mindless eating session in front of the TV), 1680 Kcal, along with beer, soda or some other sweet stuff.

      And if you go out to a "real sit-down" restaurant, the sky's the limit. Mexican food is especially calorie laden, and most places have huge portions too.

      I've lost 30 pounds since September just by counting calories and aggressive exercise. By preparing my own meals and weighing them it's been extremely easy to stay under my target of 1500 Kcals/day, usually under 1000. If I were still trying to diet while eating out all the time I'd be pretty much doomed to failure.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    27. Re:Correlation != causation by grumling · · Score: 1

      You're assuming someone is going to try to eat "the right foods."

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    28. Re:Correlation != causation by grumling · · Score: 1

      I must be the exception then, because I'm losing weight on a calorie restrictive diet and aggressive exercise program. I've found that, at some points in the day I get a little hungry, but for the most part even though I'm usually eating well under 1500 kcal a day I'm just not feeling hungry. I'm eating a lot of green vegetables and drinking water, and once I get myself moving on a jog or bike ride my appetite seems to just dry up.

      It probably helps that I've been in relatively good shape for most of my life, only getting fat after a dramatic job change (outside physical work to inside mental work) and getting lazy about exercise.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    29. Re:Correlation != causation by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Actually...
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

      Moderate exercise reduces appetite.

      "A vigorous 60-minute workout on a treadmill affects the release of two key appetite hormones, ghrelin and peptide YY, while 90 minutes of weight lifting affects the level of only ghrelin, according to a new study. Taken together, the research shows that aerobic exercise is better at suppressing appetite than non-aerobic exercise and provides a possible explanation for how that happens."

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    30. Re:Correlation != causation by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Experimental claims are taken as fact by who? Usually, what I see is a headline about a scientific study, with no link to the actual papers, and no follow-up through a citations index. It seems to me that many people's problems with scientists actually have problems with journalism.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    31. Re:Correlation != causation by dcw3 · · Score: 1
      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    32. Re:Correlation != causation by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I glanced at the first two links, which referred to peer review problems causing problems for scientists. That doesn't mean scientists take the papers as fact; if they're reading those articles they'll be even more reluctant.

      Science isn't just peer-reviewed papers. Some of those papers are going to be wrong, and some experiments will wind up not meaning what people thought at the time. This is known, although it would appear that it's getting worse. Citation indexes are great for following up on those papers a few years later and seeing if the results held up to later study, failed, or weren't interesting enough to be followed up on.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. Modern lifestyles promote this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We say that excessive sitting is unhealthy. However, modern lifestyles encourage excessive sitting, despite its dangers. Some say it's as bad as smoking. However, we spend eight or nine hours each weekday at work, and the high paying jobs tend to involve lots of sitting. We also spend lots of time in commute, perhaps 30-45 minutes each way, sitting in a car stuck in traffic. It's really easy to spend ten or more hours per day sitting. While I understand that sustaining our modern way of life requires more use of our minds and less manual labor, this is definitely unhealthy. In many ways, the 40 hour work week is becoming a dinosaur as people are expected to work beyond that in many jobs. More isn't always better, and it probably isn't good for overall productivity. But that's the direction we're going, and creating a generation that's probably more unhealthy than people who smoked, were around asbestos and lead, and didn't have access to the modern health care we enjoy. And we wonder why we're fatter than ever, eating unhealthy and getting unhealthy amounts of sleep, and why we're going to life shorter lives on average than the last generation. It's our lifestyle, and it's killing us. But that's what is required of us now.

    1. Re:Modern lifestyles promote this by grumling · · Score: 1

      People also waste a lot of time at the office and call it working.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  5. If this is true, I'm in trouble by Maow · · Score: 5, Funny

    I probably won't even make it to the end of this post.

    On the other han

    1. Re:If this is true, I'm in trouble by zoid.com · · Score: 1

      Yep... I'm doomed.

    2. Re:If this is true, I'm in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other han

      Greedo shot first?

    3. Re:If this is true, I'm in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must already be dead

    4. Re:If this is true, I'm in trouble by antdude · · Score: 1

      RIP, Maow. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  6. Yes convenient for employers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Keep them sleep deprived and standing. It's for their own good.

    Baloney.

  7. Great Timing by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Funny

    I love that a story about how poor sleep habits and sitting too long can kill you was posted at 2:15 AM. Those of us sitting around unable to sleep now have our apparently imminent mortality to think about, too.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    1. Re:Great Timing by jandersen · · Score: 1

      ...posted at 2:15 AM.

      Timezones? When I look at this article, I see 7:15 as the timestamp.

    2. Re:Great Timing by NeoMorphy · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming EST, since I see 2:15AM as well.

    3. Re:Great Timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those of us sitting around unable to sleep now have our apparently imminent mortality to think about, too.

      The summary of the actual article suggests that too much sleep is the bigger problem, and that sleep issues may be a symptom rather than a cause anyway.

      When sleep was present as a lone risk factor, short sleep duration was only marginally associated with mortality (HR = 1.09), while long sleep duration was associated with much higher risk (HR = 1.44)....The mechanism for the association between long sleep duration and mortality is not well understood [17,47]. Most studies suggest that long sleep duration tends to be associated with sleep fragmentation, fatigue, depression, and underlying disease and poor health [53]. Therefore, the observed association between long sleep duration and all-cause mortality could be due to “reverse causality” or residual confounding [17,54].

    4. Re:Great Timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always 2.15 AM somewhere...

    5. Re:Great Timing by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      I thought that 08:15 was the time that it's always been.

      Lyric from Enola Gay by Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark, for those too young to know it

  8. Indirect correlation or actual causation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In true Slashdot style, I didn't actually RTFA. But these kinds of studies make me wonder whether things like sitting and sleeping too much are really what's causing the increased mortality. Or whether they're proxies that only correlate with the actual causes of increased mortality.

    For example, an underlying medical condition could easily result in sleeping more than is typical. In fact, people who are so sick that they are hospitalized typically sleep a lot and have trouble even getting out of bed. Some are even in borderline comas (e.g. from the high levels of pain killers, etc. that they're being given).

    And if you're sitting a lot then you're probably in a high stress job - and there's a good chance you're even in a situation where you don't feel like you have a lot of control over your life and aren't feeling that life is fun and that you want to take care of yourself so you live as long as possible.

  9. Academia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    University finals week[s] here. Can confirm, feel like I'm going to die soon if I have to keep this up another week.

    1. Re:Academia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't close your eyes but think of your subject.

  10. Living underground & absence of sunlight by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    If living underground and never getting any sunlight are detrimental too I'd be surprised if I make it to the end of the;lksdgne poigjuofdjs;l;dlkmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  11. Also consider this... by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mortality is higher among slashdot users with a low user id. Makes you think doesn't it?

    --
    -- Make America hate again!
    1. Re:Also consider this... by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 5, Funny

      And birthdays are good for you - the more you have the longer you live

    2. Re:Also consider this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only celebrate my birthday every other year. That way I'll live longer.

    3. Re:Also consider this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lifehack : be born on feb 29, live 4X as long

      one weird trick!

    4. Re:Also consider this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Au contrair, you'll die younger.

  12. sleepwalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    zombie see zombie do... no changes.. not so long life of exhaustion & disappointment,, wmd on credit genocides are like that? starvation, deception & violence obsoletely fatal concoction for physical & spiritual bankruptcy... meanwhile truth + mercy = justice universal spiritual axioms wake us up in the moms we trust

  13. After reading the article by calexontheroad66 · · Score: 1

    The survey seems to be sound in terms of methodology, sample size and tracking period. Like any statistical survey the findings might point to correlated variables that are main causes, but some variables are more difficult to ascertain what is behind them.
    Lack or too much sleep might be result of hormonal or metabolic problems, also the result of breathing issues due to congenital defects or too much height.
    So, although some variable aren't perfect they can me measured and tracked, while deeper and more granular issues are difficult to categorize and measure.
    Cause the researchers are trying to triage main indicators of well-being and study their aftermath, so afterwards more research can be done on the causes of preventable death.
    And for most part, the results are pretty much common sense. Smoking is bad, period. Heavy drinking kills your liver cells, depletes your vitamin B complex reserves, and dehydrates the body.
    Chronic lack of sleep causes changes on the metabolism, increases stress response feedback, and increases the probability of an accident.
    Sitting down for long periods might cause hemorrhoids and muscular atrophy, it also doesn't do much good to your bowels.
    Everything put together, regardless of the network of causality that made it happen, will not have a good effect on your general health.

    1. Re:After reading the article by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Yes, but as the contributor above pointed out, correlation != causation.

      We've had too many false positives from the Nurses' Health Study to ignore that.

      People who are sick in the first place are likely to be more sedentary and to have difficulty sleeping.

    2. Re:After reading the article by calexontheroad66 · · Score: 1

      Yep, correlation != causation.
      But any statistical study worth their salt will check the data for bias and other effects.
      Also, we don't have the abstract of the article, or the introduction to the survey questionnaire, but it is possible that there is a health condition field.
      Like a health status, or if the person has a previous condition or another health issue.
      So it logical to assume that there was some tracking on that.
      Plus, you can be "healthy" and not know that you have a congenital or genetic condition or even cancer.
      That is why in situations you are not sure about causality you'll use random testing, that's what it is used for pharma trials.
      This survey from what I can read was survey done on groups to control a set of variables related to preventable death, and check for clusters.
      Very much standard course of action, if it is an open survey the raw data probably is available in anonymized form so other teams can check the results.

    3. Re:After reading the article by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Actually, we do have the abstract and the entire article. PLOS Medicine is open source. http://journals.plos.org/plosm... I think you can even follow the links to the original questionnaire.

      There's a pretty strong consensus among epidemiologists, including the ones who gave the talk I linked to https://www.elsevier.com/conne... , that you can't infer causation from association.

      But any statistical study worth their salt will check the data for bias and other effects.

      Yes, they'll check, but without a randomized, controlled trial, it's impossible to rule out bias and other effects.

    4. Re: After reading the article by calexontheroad66 · · Score: 1

      Nice, then you have leads to do randomized controlled studies where before you would have to guess. I bet there is a strong correlation with the amount of surveys done with followup controlled studies on a given subject. That is called empirical work that builds up a case. Eventually you will have a more precise picture, that's science.

  14. Life sucks anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're an American worker slaving away in a cubicle to make rich assholes even richer, life sucks anyway. Why prolong it?

    1. Re:Life sucks anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you're an American worker slaving away in a cubicle to make rich assholes even richer, life sucks anyway. Why prolong it?

      Those rich assholes sit in their office all day long and never get up except for lunch and they sleep in every day because they are the boss.. I think we are about to learn an important lesson here... in 4... 3....2....1.... Promotion!

  15. Am I bad at sums? by thogard · · Score: 2

    Of all participants, 31.2%, 36.9%, 21.4%, and 10.6% reported 0, 1, 2, and 3+ risk factors, respectively. There was a strong relationship between the lifestyle risk index score and all-cause mortality.

    31.2+36.9+21.4+10.6= everyone and 1% extras. Did significant significance creep in?

    Out of all 96 possible risk combinations, the 30 most commonly occurring combinations accounted for more than 90% of the participants.

    Each of 7 factors can be one of two states. That is 2^7 except that two of the conditions are "too much" or "too little" sleep which means a those state can be reduced to one. 2^6 isn't 96 as far as I know.

    1. Re:Am I bad at sums? by maeka · · Score: 2

      No, of the 7, those 2 conditions can be reduced to a triplet not a 6th binary pair. That leaves 5 binary pairs and the triplet.

      so 2^5*3=96

    2. Re:Am I bad at sums? by thogard · · Score: 1

      Based on your comment, I'm guessing they are assuming self reporting for both over-sleeping and under-sleeping?

    3. Re:Am I bad at sums? by maeka · · Score: 1

      What does A have to do with B?

    4. Re:Am I bad at sums? by thogard · · Score: 1

      How can you both over sleep and under sleep? And how can you ask that in a survey or get it from other data in a reliable way? I know this can be true but I expect about as many correct answers on a self survey to a question like that as "what color is the last unicorn horn you saw?"

      There are people who both under sleep and over sleep but they are very rare and I expect they would be hesitant to answer the question correctly. That doesn't even deal with the issues of having them dropped from the pool of subjects due to other health issues.

    5. Re:Am I bad at sums? by maeka · · Score: 1

      You can't both over and under. Thus we have 5 binary conditions:

      2^5=32

      and the "other" two conditions, Over and Under. That's the 7.

      But over and under are conditional conditions, only one can exist at a time (or neither). Thus they are, together, a triplet.

      So 2^5=32*3=96

    6. Re:Am I bad at sums? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How can you both over sleep and under sleep?"

      Easy. Alternate days.

  16. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because I can't wait for this shit to be over.

    --typed at 3:11am

  17. Some obvious workarounds... by tlambert · · Score: 5, Funny

    Some obvious workarounds...

    "2.42 times more likely to die during the study"

    These people can avoid dying during the study by not participating in the study.

    "4.23 times more likely die by the time the study ended"

    These people could be saved by continuing the study indefinitely.

    Problems solved!

    1. Re:Some obvious workarounds... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      scientific observation has been strongly correlated to cancer in laboratory rats

  18. Study Sponsorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The new study, sponsored by SteelCase, manufacturer of standing desk solutions for business...

  19. Yep by Dunbal · · Score: 0

    I'm really going to miss those years between 75 and 80. I mean, we're talking quality of life there.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, enjoy feeling like an 80-year-old when you're 70.

  20. "Having a single major risk factor increased mortality rates slightly, but the study found that those who report multiple risk factors are significantly more likely to die early."

    Wow, how insightful.

    In other news, scientists found that being shot in the chest once increased mortality rates slightly, but those who are shot in the chest multiple times "are significantly more likely to die early."

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  21. Code fast, die young, leave a pale bloated corpse by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    Don't worry. Your employer will find another you at the first sign of any health problems.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  22. As a trucker.... by Computershack · · Score: 3, Interesting

    .....I'm royally fucked. 12-15hr shifts mostly sat on my arse driving or waiting, 6hrs a day of broken sleep and to top it off I work nights as well. Already got a fucked back and am overweight, both of which are very common in the job. On the bright side at least I'll be dead long before my medical care gets really expensive.

    --
    I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
    1. Re:As a trucker.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dad drove trucks, it destroyed his back. He has had numerous surgeries on it, and hes only mid fifties. Get out as soon as you can.

    2. Re:As a trucker.... by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Plus with all that driving, there's a good chance you'll get into an accident.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    3. Re:As a trucker.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least don't spend 20 minutes passing that truck that's only doing 100KM/h when you are only doing 101KM/h and wasting the lives away of the mile-long line-up of cars behind you waiting to pass you both!

      If you are in the passing lane, put your fucking foot down on the accelerator, pass and get the fuck out of the way, OK? Don't be a selfish prick making everybody else wait because you save a precious few millilitres of fuel and take 20 minutes to complete your pass.

      And while you are at it, look in the fucking mirror and don't just blindly pull into the passing lane forcing that guy who is doing 20KM/h more than you to get past your slow ass slam on his breaks to avoid hitting you as you cut him off.

      Truck drivers are bane of every road.

    4. Re:As a trucker.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, you'll be out of a job fairly soon, what with the driving AI and robotic development. You can then take up running or something uber healthy soon enough.

  23. Hooray! by truck_soccer · · Score: 1

    My job will finally kill me! Great news! Now if we could only accelerate this process...

  24. Repeat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The study looks like only a six-year period.
    Kinda like saying a three-day study shows people who play Russian Roulette are more likely to die than those who don't
    If they repeat the study with an 80-year period, I bet it won't be so conclusive.

  25. Risky Study by tsqr · · Score: 1

    Those who blended insufficient exercise with prolonged sitting were 2.42 times more likely to die during the study, and those who were also guilty of sleeping for too many hours were 4.23 times more likely die by the time the study ended.

    Sounds like participating in the study was pretty risky behavior as well.

  26. Well... shit... by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    Here I am sitting at my 9-5 desk sit-down desk job, running on about 4 hours of sleep... RIP

  27. Bullsh*t, just like every other statistic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullsh*t, just like every other statistic. There is no way to prove a cause and effect.

    As Mark Twain popularized, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

  28. Photo of actual call center! by k6mfw · · Score: 2

    So that's what those places look like. I could not help but think of rowers that powered Roman Empire naval vessels the way these people are lined up in rows and columns. Battle speed!

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:Photo of actual call center! by gwjgwj · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Photo of actual call center! by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Fascinating "documentary." The bosses should have chained those accountants to their seats to prevent uprising. As far as those in the call center, "Call well and live."

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  29. drones will save you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    12 to 15 hours.. are you long haul?
    No worries, the self driving trucks will take your job in a few years and you'll quickly lose that chubby belly of yours and have plenty of time to catch up on your sleep!

  30. newsflash: living will shorten your life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet if we all laid completely still in hermetically sealed boxes, breathing pure oxygen, being fed and evacuated through tubes, we'd all live way longer.

    But what fucking fun would that be eh?

    Live fast, die young and leave behind whatever the fuck you are left with for a corpse. I don't give a rat's ass what my corpse will look like. I'll be dead.

  31. Email to all employees by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    Just got this, hope I don't die before this January's presentation:

    Sleep and Performance Sleep is an integral part of life that is often bartered in exchange for spending more time on all other aspects of life. However, studies have shown that inadequate sleep actually has a negative impact on both health and performance. Understanding the physiologic drive for sleep, the effects of fatigue, and how to optimize sleep will provide the participants with strategies to boost performance and reduce fatigue-related accidents.

    Learning Objectives:
    Learn why sleep is important and how it impacts health and performance
    Understand the underlying components of fatigue
    Recognize techniques to prioritize sleep and mitigate risks

    Agenda:
    Welcome
    Sleep and Performance
    Why Sleep is Important
    Health Benefits of Adequate Sleep
    Performance Benefits of Adequate Sleep
    Productivity
    Fatigue
    Sleep Tips
    Summary

    Seminar Length: 1 Hour
    I hope you can take advantage of this opportunity.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  32. Chris Rock by mwason · · Score: 1

    In the words of Chris rock. You are going to die, fuck it!