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

Sitting too much during the day has been linked to a host of diseases, from obesity to heart problems and diabetes, as well as early death. It's not hard to understand why: being inactive can contribute to weight gain, which in turn is a risk factor for heart attack, stroke, hypertension and unhealthy blood sugar levels. On top of everything else, sitting has detrimental effects on cells at the biological level, according to a new report published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. From a report on Time: In the new study, scientists led by Aladdin Shadyab, a post-doctoral fellow in family medicine and public health at the University of California San Diego, traced sitting's impact on the chromosomes. They took blood samples from nearly 1,500 older women enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative, a long-term study of chronic diseases in post-menopausal women, and focused on the telomeres: the tips of the tightly packed DNA in every cell. Previous studies have found that as cells divide and age, they lose bits of the telomeres, so the length of this region can be a marker for how old a cell (and indirectly the person the cells belong to) is. The researchers compared telomere length to how much the women exercised, to see if physical activity affected aging.

Comments

So basically

[hcs_$reboot]

doing some exercise daily increases your life expectancy by 8 years.

Re:So basically

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it only makes you look 8 years younger.

Re:So basically

[unixisc]

That's the first thought that occurred to me. I'm headed to bed

Re:So basically

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. But please address the core of my argument: do you really think wrinkled hard working, lard eating people are better off than urban white collar all-day-sitting folks? Have extreme working people been taken into account to form a broader picture where from correlations can be established?

Re:So basically

[BarbaraHudson]

Too bad the study is bullshit because it's based on the WHI (Women's Health Initiative), a study that had huge design and implementation flaws and bad data analysis.

The WHI claimed to study the effects of hormone replacement therapy on women. However, rather than using bio-identical human hormones, they used Premarin and Prempro (the PREgnant MARe unINe). Hint - human estrogen is not bio-identical to horse estrogen, so we're already off to a bad start. Also, at the time Premarin was approved, the 50+ impurities were allowed by the FDA because the manufacturer didn't claim a therapeutic benefit from them. It would not be approved on that basis today, but rather, its been grandfathered in, same as many other drugs that were approved under less stringent testing requirements. Choosing one drug supplier for all 150,000+ women was a mistake. All it told us was the effects of horse hormones on women. We now know that Premarin is not good for your liver.

Second, the study cohort was mostly too old and too fat to be a representative sample of women in the age cohort, so there was severe selection bias, which the British found negatively influenced the results after repeating the experiments, leading to the opposite conclusion - for women who have been post-menopausal 5 years or less, estrogen (not Premarin) benefits outweighed the risks. The biggest risk factors are controllable - don't smoke, don't be a fattie, and don't take progestins and you can enjoy the benefits of longer life, lower cardiovascular problems, and less loss of bone density with minimal risk.

Menopause is not normal. In the entire chain of mammals, there are only two species (out of more than 80) whales, and humans, who go through menopause. In humans, it's easily explained by our ability to live longer outpacing our ability to evolve to accommodate the lengthened lifespan. Doesn't make it normal, it makes it a disorder that we can and should take whatever preventative measures we can to prevent it's impacting our lives.

The British government has been running a campaign directed at doctors, urging them to discuss HRT with their female patients, hopefully instead of prescribing antidepressants to deal with menopause, as happened after the whole "HRT IS BAD" scare.

Of course, like any big scare, it got headlines. The corrections rarely make the front page, or the news, anywhere. Same as most breakthrough medical studies that are later found to be either not repeatable (+60%) or show only minimal results.

You can't draw conclusions about normal human aging based on a non-representative cohort of women fed horse hormones laced with impurities. They need to at the very least change their data source and re-run their analysis.

Re:So basically

[OrangeTide]

Having 8 more years of life to spend exercising doesn't seem so great.

Re:So basically

[ShanghaiBill]

Research results are unclear. Some studies have found a link between sitting and bad health, and also found that exercising doesn't offset the sitting. Other studies have found a much weaker correllation, so maybe sitting all day isn't that big of a deal.

Disclaimer: I have a stand-up desk in my office ($39 folding table from Costco with 4 sections of PVC pipe to extend the legs, and a 2 inch thick anti-fatigue mat to stand on), and I use it about 4 hours per day.

Re:So basically

[Opyros]

Menopause is not normal

OTOH, this experiment shows how menopause could be adaptive.

Re:So basically

[BarbaraHudson]

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

Re:So basically

[tehcyder]

Having 8 more years of life to spend exercising doesn't seem so great.

You do realise that you don't have to spend the 8 years continuously exercising? Right?

Re:So basically

[OrangeTide]

Any amount tends to ruin the whole day for me.

Re:So basically

[maharvey]

Can I just put my brain in a jar instead of exercising?

Re:So basically

[OrangeTide]

It would certainly make airplane travel easier.

Damn...

[MindPrison]

>Sitting Too Much Ages You By 8 Years

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

Sitting too much, much?

[rmdingler]

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

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

Re: Sitting too much, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some things are common sense but you need science to verify their truth. Please don't forget that.

Re:Sitting too much, much?

[link-error]

Correlation, does not causation make.

Re:Sitting too much, much?

[Wargames]

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

Re:Sitting too much, much?

[iMadeGhostzilla]

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

Re:Sitting too much, much?

[ColdWetDog]

Beware, beware the angry AC.

Re:Sitting too much, much?

[jellomizer]

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

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

Re:Sitting too much, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please show your work if you wish to refute. Most people online are ready to shoot off their mouth without doing their homework. In other words, a waste of oxygen.

Re:Sitting too much, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

He missed:

In all caps (damn this filter).... "Now get off my lawn!!!11!!11!!!!"

Work and cars

[OffTheLip]

For many sitting starts in a car during a long commute to/from work followed by sitting for another 8+ hours. When I was faced with that I would spend a portion of my lunch break walking around my work site.

Re:Work and cars

[Anonymous Coward]

I decided rather than sitting in a car on the way to work, I would rather sit on a bicycle seat. Over 9 miles it is 5 minutes faster to work and 15 minutes quicker to get home.

Re:Work and cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so lets talk about work. Have you seen the average farmer, who works heavily all day long? They look youthful for you? How about janitors, cleaners and people with heavy manual work. Do they look youthful for you?

I sit all day, and exercise 1 hour every day. People consistently say I look 15 years younger than I am. So, yeah, I'm taking this study with a spoon of salt.

CAP: aptitude [btw, a great package management tool].

Re:Work and cars

[asylumx]

Also cheaper!

Re:Work and cars

[asylumx]

Age is not just about how you look. That is vanity, not age. People who look great still get heart disease, among other afflictions.

Re:Work and cars

[hattig]

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

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

Re:Work and cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you would be surprised. I spend almost as much money on my bicycle a month as I would spend in gas a month. Bike tires, replacement chains, a new cassette for the rear wheel about every 3,000 miles $100, a new set of chain rings in the front about every 5,000 miles $200. A new bottom bracket every 5,000 miles $40. New bike clothing about every 6 months $200. New brake pads every 5,000 miles $60. New wheelset every 2 years, $600. It adds up quickly.

But, I wouldn't give up riding to work for anything... Here is this mornings ride to work... https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1532735385

Nathan

Re:Work and cars

[BarbaraHudson]

Ok, so lets talk about work. Have you seen the average farmer, who works heavily all day long? They look youthful for you? How about janitors, cleaners and people with heavy manual work. Do they look youthful for you?

I sit all day, and exercise 1 hour every day. People consistently say I look 15 years younger than I am. So, yeah, I'm taking this study with a spoon of salt.

CAP: aptitude [btw, a great package management tool].

And that old man will probably be able to dig your grave with a hand shovel. Skin aging is normal when your skin is constantly damaged by sunlight.

Re:Work and cars

[ChrisMaple]

OK, it would have helped if you had specified motorcycle.

Re:Work and cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is, work has recently started an aggressive Working from Home culture (well, 2 or 3 days a week).

...that's a problem?! People would kill to have that kind of freedom. Besides, being forced to work from home should have no bearing on whether you get exercise or not, that's a matter of discipline on your part. Plus, there is more than just walking, you know. You can always walk outside before and after you work, or on lunch break, or if weather is not cooperating then do some cardio in the house. Or get some weights and start lifting. Or look up any of the myriad exercises you can do to work out without having to buy anything. ...I still can't believe you referred to having to work from home as a problem...

Re:Work and cars

[ShanghaiBill]

I spend almost as much money on my bicycle a month as I would spend in gas a month.

I bought my bike for $100 on Craigslist 5 years ago, ride it every day, and my only expenses during that time have been a set of kevlar tires and a bell. If you are regularly spending $600 for a new set of wheel hubs, then you are doing it wrong.

Re:Work and cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so lets talk about work. Have you seen the average farmer, who works heavily all day long? They look youthful for you? How about janitors, cleaners and people with heavy manual work. Do they look youthful for you?

I sit all day, and exercise 1 hour every day. People consistently say I look 15 years younger than I am. So, yeah, I'm taking this study with a spoon of salt.

CAP: aptitude [btw, a great package management tool].

And that old man will probably be able to dig your grave with a hand shovel. Skin aging is normal when your skin is constantly damaged by sunlight.

Since you apparently don't get my point, lets dig further. How about, primitive, pre-industrial way of living? Like, you know, Amazon indians, African herders, Arctic tribes, etc. A life of working out and struggles, just to be dead by 40.

Re:Work and cars

[ShanghaiBill]

Have you seen the average farmer, who works heavily all day long?

I have. My parents are farmers. They sit on a comfy seat in the air conditioned cab of their tractor. Modern farming has very little "heavy work", and rural people have the highest obesity rates in America.

Re:Work and cars

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I haven't moved to 10 & 11 speed drivetrains. Sticking around with 8 speed is a lot cheaper.

Re:Work and cars

[Anonymous Coward]

You are missing some important pieces of the cost comparison. The price of insurance, registration, taxes, maintenance, the purchase price of the car, the time saved makes your hourly rate higher, the time taking your car in or doing the maintenance if you are the DIY type, and the health benefits (being sick is expensive) of being more active.

Re:Work and cars

[jbengt]

RTFA:
If you exercise at least 1/2 hour a day, sitting the rest of the day doesn't make a difference.
Besides, your looks don't tell your age. As others have said, a lot of looks has to do with skin damage from sun exposure.

Re:Work and cars

[pr100]

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

Re:Work and cars

[BarbaraHudson]

Sorry, but I'm in a really pissy mood with myself today again trying to figure out why I don't just kill myself, and I guess it shows. Today's farmer is not doing "a life of working out and struggles, just to be dead by 40." The average age of a farmer is now 58. That's not the age they die at, it's their average age. Here's a story about an guy who dug his own grave just because

Kickham is also hoping that his family will remember him as a man with a good sense of humour.

"The grandchildren will know that their grandfather dug his own grave with his own backhoe at the age of 90. So that'll be something for them to carry around, won't it?"

This guy dug his own grave, and he's well over the average age of expectancy. Sun damage to skin just doesn't equate to overall health.

Re:Work and cars

[TranquilVoid]

Yes, if you make cycling into a hobby then the costs can skyrocket as you chase better and 'better' gear. That said I'm surprised one set of tyres could last so long. Riding ~40km per weekday I'll need to change tyres every 6 months, plus patch or replace tubes occasionally, brake pads, handlebar windings and every year or two put in a new chain and back sprocket.

Still cheaper than driving when you factor servicing in.

Re:Work and cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Just fyi I compared calories burned while sitting to calories burned while standing and walking. Even with vague in my head math using a standing desk and then taking a load off for my breaks and lunch resulted in higher calorie consumption than sitting all day and walking for all of my break/lunch time. That is partially what got me to go standing desk.

They might have reversed cause and effect

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:They might have reversed cause and effect

[AmiMoJo]

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

Re:They might have reversed cause and effect

[dgatwood]

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

What is the 'biological' level?

[fortfive]

As opposed to the 'mineral' level, maybe?

Re:What is the 'biological' level?

[TimothyHollins]

No, as opposed to the datalink layer.

So basically

[Anonymous Coward]

It is better to lay down and sleep more. Or having sex, but this is slashdot...

Gteat pick-up line.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bergsteinwitz: hey baby, you know the doctors say that sitting too much ages you 8 years?

Baby: waaa! waaaa! waaaaa! waaaa!

Paul Bergstein: oi veh, so goes the saying that I love children unil they grow teeth.

Remote work is validated once again.

[geekmux]

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

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

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

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[GLMDesigns]

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

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

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

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

...the benefit of getting an additional 20 - 40 hours more work out of me every month

What else do you want??

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[geekmux]

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

- All the environmental impact I've already cited.

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

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

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

The benefits are as fucking obvious as the brick wall I'm talking to about them.

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

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[Anonymous Coward]

WTH? If I didn't have to commute in I sure wouldn't be working more than I already do, I'd be taking longer breaks and getting up later in the day. Pretty sure that'd be typical of most people as well.

The problem with workaholics is that they think that everyone else needs to be more like them.

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[swb]

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

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

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

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[hattig]

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

The last thing I would want to do is sit in a car in a traffic jam daily. Luckily I've avoided that throughout my career so far (admittedly this is easier in the UK/London than the US, but OTOH I have Southern Rail to contend with).

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[hattig]

Yeah, for my WfH days I don't deliberately work more hours (I may make up some if I had to leave work earlier on other days), although having a child I have to take to school removes that 'Wake up 5 minutes before the morning stand-up call' temptation.

I may end up working more hours just because it's a better environment to get work done, or I decide to have a 2 hour nap in the middle of the day.

Re: Remote work is validated once again.

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly!! i can read slashdot remotely just as well as I can in the office. in fact, reading slashdot remotely means i have fewer interruptions, so that's a win-win-win.

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[geekmux]

WTH? If I didn't have to commute in I sure wouldn't be working more than I already do, I'd be taking longer breaks and getting up later in the day. Pretty sure that'd be typical of most people as well.

The problem with workaholics is that they think that everyone else needs to be more like them.

You may have missed the fact that I split the time gained between benefits for myself (exercise), and my employer (additional work). This was done as a justification for remote work, and since it's a win-win for both parties involved, it's not exactly a detriment or turning me into a "workaholic". I'd be sitting on my ass in traffic otherwise.

Put $150 - $200 back in your pocket saving on gas costs, and you'll find you really don't mind the split and sacrifice.

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[edtice1559]

UberPool?

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[geekmux]

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

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

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Very frustrating, considering my job can easily be done remotely.

Don't worry, sounds like before too much longer it will be done from India or the Philippines.

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[swb]

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

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

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't agree with you more. It seems they just want us here to keep a seat warm, as though they have no metrics to determine whether or not we're actually working when we're remote... and as though we are spending every minute of every day working while we're here! All that matters is whether or not stuff is getting done. This isn't rocket science. If someone consistently works remotely and they aren't getting anything done, then obviously there's a problem unless they can show some sort of evidence for why they aren't getting anything done (stuck in a rut troubleshooting comes to mind, or waiting on other people to test).

But hey, they went to business school instead of learning how to produce actual valuable things, so they deserve to boss us around and get paid more, all while telling us via their remote phone that we can't work remote.

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[sjames]

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

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I finally understand why my boss thinks we could all be replaced with monkeys. He himself is a monkey. It all makes perfect sense now. I need to get out of here.

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[geekmux]

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

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

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

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

Arrogance feeding some kind of fucking primal urge to be an asshole of a boss is akin to excusing the wife beater because "testosterone", and the ongoing joke is assuming subordinates would want to work for someone like that.

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[swb]

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

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

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[geekmux]

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

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

*Darwin peers into the boardroom window*

"Yup. Fucking nailed it."

Re:Remote work is validated once again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps that explains why my boss keeps urinating on me...

There's one thing left to do:

[Anonymous Coward]

Get off your lazy ass and walk!

So what is it sitting or not doing excercise?

[Anonymous Coward]

I sit a lot cos i code for a living, I also do a lot of sport in my spare time... Is the NOT doing exercise that's a problem or the the DOING sitting that is a problem? which misinterpretation of statistics being common place these days I'm guessing the former.

So, sitting is purely by proxy?

[TimothyHollins]

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

Re:So, sitting is purely by proxy?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if you are riding a bicycle, is it better to stand while riding or to sit while riding?

Re:So, sitting is purely by proxy?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't appear to be sitting that's being tested here, but rather inactivity.

I wish this would be clarified once and for all. I sit all day at work. At the same time, at 40 y/o I've never been in better shape -- because I've never had a more physically rigorous schedule outside of work hours.

So is there some physiological aspect of resting on your rear-end that is damaging? Or is this all shorthand for "overwhelmingly sedentary lifestyle"?

I'd sure like to know.

Re:So, sitting is purely by proxy?

[Uberbah]

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

Re:So, sitting is purely by proxy?

[Uberbah]

I sit all day at work. At the same time, at 40 y/o I've never been in better shape -- because I've never had a more physically rigorous schedule outside of work hours.

And some smokers are gym rats - one healthy activity doesn't make up for an unhealthy one.

Sitting too much ages you by 8 years

[DontBeAMoran]

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

Re:Sitting too much ages you by 8 years

[Anonymous Coward]

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

According to statistics for my local county, there were 40 pedestrian fatalities and 10 bicycle fatalities in a year. I'm willing to bet that's how many people died in a single day in the same county from sitting on their ass all day, not maintaining their health and dying from ailments related to obesity and heart disease.

Looking at the top killers of humans, it's kind of obvious which activities truly increase your chances.

Re:Sitting too much ages you by 8 years

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are jogging and get hit by a plane, your are doing something wrong.

Re:Sitting too much ages you by 8 years

[Waffle Iron]

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

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

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

I do avoid some of the things that probably skew the cycling risk numbers higher, such as riding at night, or riding on hilly country roads that lack shoulders.

Re:Sitting too much ages you by 8 years

[Anonymous Coward]

SITTING in an automobile train or plane will also increase your chances to get fatally hit by those things.

Be smart

[Anonymous Coward]

At work I used to sit all day while read email, talking on the phone, replying to email, etc.

Then I discovered Siri by Apple Inc. Now I spend my days walking around with earbuds in listening to, and conversing with, Siri by Apple Inc. Siri does it all. She takes my dictations, places my calls.

Siri by Apple Inc. will free you. The future is now.

how long do I have to use my stand-up desk?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I sat at a desk for 8 hours daily for 15 years, how many years of using a stand-up desk will fix all the sitting?

Or is having completed 14 marathons in my spare time enough?

Ya, right

[AndyKron]

Too late. I died ten years ago from smoking. LOL!

Waste of time study.

[DatbeDank]

This is a prime example of researchers with easy grant money coming to obvious conclusions. No shit sitting too long is detrimental to ones health, so is anything else in excess! We didn't need extensive research to determine this result as well.

Re:Waste of time study.

[jbengt]

What part of your obvious conclusion has anything to do with measuring telomeres?

Social gender values

[JustNiz]

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

Re:Social gender values

[Anonymous Coward]

The study was about sitting, and since women have such huge asses they were considered a stable test population.

Re:Social gender values

[Anonymous Coward]

Facts are meaningless.

You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!

--Homer Simpson

Re:Social gender values

[BarbaraHudson]

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

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

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

Re:Social gender values

[Anonymous Coward]

Facts are meaningless.

You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!

--Homer Simpson

Or you could just completely ignore them. ~Trump

Re:Social gender values

[JustNiz]

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

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

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

Re:Social gender values

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Why did they just study women?
It seems like anything that affects women gets attention, while society doesn't even value men.

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

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

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

Re:Social gender values

[BarbaraHudson]

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

So no, I'm not furthering any stereotype, you jerk. I'm well aware of the problems they go through - had someone I knew who didn't tell anyone, went on hormone therapy to kill off his testosterone, and went around in a bulk jacket even in hot weather. Finally it was his wife who clued me in. This was before we knew that it is usually far better to wait and see, because in most cases, it won't be what kills you. He could have avoided years of embarrassment.

If I get you outraged enough to actually throw away the stereotype that all cancers must be treated aggressively, and look at the facts, I'd say that a bit of trolling has done some good. Same as always when nothing else will jar people out of their complacency. :-) Because the treatment options still suck big time.

Re:Social gender values

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the pendulum swung again too far in one direction... that the study was ONLY women is noteworthy.
If 'Tamarra' wanted to bring some focus to previous studies' omission of women, and present this study as the 'new inclusive & proper way' to do things, they would have done a study that INCLUDED half women, rather than set aside EXCLULSIVELY for women.

In which case the results are flawed and useless for half the population... but her vengeful temper-tantrum has been heard. And Tamarra must consider this message more important than the science.

Very revealing indeed...

Re:Social gender values

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called stratification, and isolating mechanisms. Go learn something about scientific research you ignorant piece of shit! Or continue your alt-right masturbation until you are so old and decrepit that you die as alone as you wish everyone was.

Re:Social gender values

[NoImNotNineVolt]

So, for the record, the article I linked to which quotes Tamarra James-Todd has nothing to do with this study about sitting. It predates the publication of this sitting study by over a year, even.

That being said, while I agree that performing studies exclusively on females explicitly in response to the historical focus on men wouldn't really make sense, I'm not aware of any evidence to make such a claim. Your response here, however, seems quite emotionally charged. I'm not sure how allegations of a "vengeful temper-tantrum" are warranted in response to someone dispassionately and objectively reporting statistical observations. The only thing that's "revealing" here is your apparent anger with anyone embracing evidence-based reasoning if its conclusions conflict with your worldview.

Re:Social gender values

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet prostate cancer kills more men than the amount of people, both males and females, killed by breast cancer. Where are our support ribbons?

Re:Social gender values

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, survival rates are very high, but it can sure make your life miserable if it spreads throughout your body.

Re:Social gender values

[JustNiz]

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

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

Yes you absolutely are. Jerk yourself.

Re:Social gender values

[Uberbah]

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

So who wrote this....your evil twin?

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

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

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

FTFY

Re:Social gender values

[BarbaraHudson]

And yet prostate cancer kills more men than the amount of people, both males and females, killed by breast cancer. Where are our support ribbons?

You don't get a support ribbon for lying. 27,681 men died from prostate cancer. 40,860 women and 464 men died from breast cancer. And you failed to note that half of all men decide not to treat their prostate cancer.

Re:Social gender values

[BarbaraHudson]

Nobody said survival rates were high. You obviously didn't read the full article. It's that men don't want the side effects of treatment - that's what makes their lives miserable, the incontinence, the impotency, etc. They are choosing quality of life over years lived. And who can blame them - they are saying the same thing women have been saying - it's my body and my decision.

Re:Social gender values

[BarbaraHudson]

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

Re:Social gender values

[BarbaraHudson]

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

Re:Social gender values

[JustNiz]

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

http://healthydebate.ca/person...

There fixed it for ya.

Re:Social gender values

[BarbaraHudson]

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

Re:Social gender values

[JustNiz]

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

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

Re:Social gender values

[BarbaraHudson]

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

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

But don't whine about how it's not funded enough - YOU can help solve it, but not by whining. Women got over our reluctance to talk about mammograms, self-exams, and breast cancer - why can't you talk about the need for the rubber glove treatment once in a while to make sure everything is healthy, or help raise awareness and funds? Aren't man enough to do it?

Re:Social gender values

[Uberbah]

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

Re:Social gender values

[BarbaraHudson]

Saying something is true based on facts is not a non-response, asswipe.

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

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

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

Re:Social gender values

[Uberbah]

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

Re:Social gender values

[BarbaraHudson]

Since the subject is medical doctors and cancer research, you should know that studies show you'll probably live longer if your doctor is a woman. And that male doctors have been proven to discriminate against female patients in terms of pain management, not taking their complaints as seriously (and pain management is part of cancer treatment, and the biases are there in the research as well, big time. For example, early breast cancer studies excluded women because "women have too many variables to make good test subjects").

sit on me instead

[Anonymous Coward]

tandems are better. like how the SWAT spoons eachother in a big line as they enter your house.

large downloads age wires.

[Anonymous Coward]

metal migration occurs on semiconductors, like electrolysis on zinc plates while a boat engine is submerged in water.

Wherever there is an imbalance thete is the inefficiency of the imbalance discharging.

Glad I prefer lying in bed all day

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad I prefer lying in bed all day. I'm SAFE!
Who knew that sitting was so dangerous?

Re:Glad I prefer lying in bed all day

[tepples]

Glad I prefer lying in bed all day

"Of course I didn't sleep with anyone else."

Biological age vs. chronological age

[tepples]

I think it means biological age as opposed to strict chronological age. If you're biologically eight years older, your cells show damage comparable to the median person chronologically eight years older than you.

Constructively dismissed? Become a contractor

[tepples]

Stop bitching and create something.

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

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

Re:Constructively dismissed? Become a contractor

[geekmux]

Stop bitching and create something.

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

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

Sound point.

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

Re:Constructively dismissed? Become a contractor

[GLMDesigns]

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

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

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

I tried working at home and after a while I hated it. You want it? Explore the reasons. Write articles. Do surveys. Present your views at management seminars. If you don't do it who will?

Is this work? Yes. Either you do it, or wait for other people to. That's your options.

They are suppressing partial solutions

[Tablizer]

In Europe they use weight-loss medication that has proven fairly effective and safe. But for some reason doctors in the US are discouraged from prescribing them.

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

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

Re:They are suppressing partial solutions

[sjames]

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

Re:They are suppressing partial solutions

[phantomfive]

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

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

Re:They are suppressing partial solutions

[Tablizer]

https://science.slashdot.org/s...

Re:They are suppressing partial solutions

[phantomfive]

I guess I should see an obesity specialist, then.

Re:They are suppressing partial solutions

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there evidence that weight loss alone counteracts the effects of inactivity and sitting all day? Non-obese people might even be at a disadvantage because it isn't obvious how unwell they are. IIRC exercise and muscle strength are better predictors for a long life than normal weight.

sitting is unhealthy...

[Anonymous Coward]

which is why i lay in bed all day.

Re:TRUMP RULES !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

1!

FreeBSD manages my telomeres like nobody's business. I was using Debian and that POS systemd made me look 8 years older. Telomeres everywhere. Shit! With FreeBSD I'm looking younger by the week, all my telomeres nicely packed in /usr/local/bin, where they fucking belong Debian!
My phone hasn't stopped ringing.

Sitting != inactivity

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet again, another retard article is claiming that sitting is being inactive.
You CAN sit and exercise, you know.

Doing the same activity for more than 3 hours is pushing it already, whether it is sitting, standing or furious exercise. (masturbation included)
Sitting still is like, 1.5~MET activity and standing still is about 20-30% more across fit to unhealthy people.
There is not a big difference. Both will kill you prematurely if you do them for more than 3 hours consistently.
If you do them for about 5, you are seriously risking your long-term health from damage to veins (leading to rapid calficiation or varicose veins), cerebrospinal fluid ability to function, your intestinal health, it can royally fuck your posture and joints up, weaken your heart and do damage to your muscles from overworking them (usually leading to semi-permanent pain in people for life, even after stopping).

It is possible to exercise while sitting for long periods of time. Likewise mitigate the damage done by standing for long periods.
Fuck, a typical videogamer has a heart beat higher than a person riding a bike. Bikes are designed for TRAVEL, not exercise. Very few bikes are designed to restrict your RPMs, and those are usually found exclusively in gyms / homes.
Sure, they might not have decent muscle strength in the rest of their body besides heart and arms. They'll still suffer some damage due to not moving their body. Moving your body is a biological function just like breathing. Limiting it is like holding your mouth shut for 1 minute every 5 minutes every hour of the day. It won't kill you instantly, but it does add up. (mainly lead to poor gut health and, if diet is bad, calcification of veins in lower limbs and higher stroke risk from legs if their seating situation is poor)

Over-exertion is as big as killer as under-exertion. Don't do either.
Humans, like any large animal, need to self-moderate their rest and activity.
The optimum isn't known, but we have fairly good estimates for the ceiling for exertion. (3 hours, higher is risking damage)
Sadly the lower-end for inactivity is being polluted and drowned-out by stupid shit like this!

Re:Sitting != inactivity

[jbengt]

Sitting still is like, 1.5~MET activity and standing still is about 20-30% more across fit to unhealthy people.

Really? Because according to an old article in the ASHRAE journal that I ran across, office work is only about 1.2 Met and sitting in a lecture hall or library is only around 1.0 Met.

Hawking made it to 75 doing nothing but sitting

[Anonymous Coward]

Hawking has been sitting most of his life and he's still around at 75...

Re:Hawking made it to 75 doing nothing but sitting

[jeffb (2.718)]

Meaningless until you compare him with someone who's maintained a high level of physical activity, spending little time sitting, throughout 50 years of full-blown ALS.

More money on Viagra subsidies than brain research

[deodiaus2]

What do you say about a society that spends more money on viagra subsidies and on brain research? Soon, we will have nursing homes full of honey old men with no idea of what to do?

Re:More money on Viagra subsidies than brain resea

[deodiaus2]

What do you say about a society that spends more money on Viagra subsidies than on brain research? Soon, we will have nursing homes full of honey old men with no idea of what to do?

Re:TRUMP RULES !!!

[Coren22]

No, there are still 19+ hours until the inauguration starts.

18.3 mph

[Camel Pilot]

From his garmin link he is averaging 18.3 mph - I am guessing you are not doing that on your craigslist wonder bike.

Re:More money on Viagra subsidies than brain resea

[LunaticTippy]

Keep trying, bucko.

WTF is a honey old men? Elderly male beekeepers?

It's the TOO MUCH which is bad for you

[Anonymous Coward]

Too much of anything causes problems.

This Article

[Anonymous Coward]

is written by someone who is sitting too much,
published by someone who is sitting too much,
read by someone who is sitting too much,
and commented by someone who is also sitting too much.

... if you're a physically inactive old woman.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not. Probably most of us aren't. What a crappy headline.