Moving Every Half Hour Could Help Limit Effects of Sedentary Lifestyle, Says Study (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Moving your body at least every half an hour could help to limit the harmful effects of desk jobs and other sedentary lifestyles, research has revealed. The study found that both greater overall time spent inactive in a day, and longer periods of inactivity were linked to an increased risk of death. Writing in the journal the Annals of Internal Medicine, Diaz and colleagues from seven U.S. institutions describe how they kitted out nearly 8,000 individuals aged 45 or over from across the U.S. with activity trackers between 2009 and 2013. Each participant wore the fitness tracker for at least four days during a period of one week, with deaths of participants tracked until September 2015. The results reveal that, on average, participants were inactive for 12.3 hours of a 16 hour waking day, with each period of inactivity lasting an average of 11.4 minutes. After taking into account a host of factors including age, sex, education, smoking and high blood pressure, the team found that both the overall length of daily inactivity and the length of each bout of sedentary behavior were linked to changes in the risk of death from any cause. The associations held even among participants undertaking moderate to vigorous physical activity.

Those who were inactive for 13.2 hours a day had a risk of death 2.6 times that of those spending less than 11.5 hours a day inactive, while those whose bouts of inactivity lasted on average 12.4 minutes or more had a risk of death almost twice that of those who were inactive for an average of less than 7.7 minutes at a time. The team then looked at the interaction between the two measures of inactivity, finding the risk of death was greater for those who had both high overall levels of inactivity (12.5 hours a day or more) and long average bouts of sedentary behavior (10 minutes or more), than for those who had high levels of just one of the measures.

Comments

I like to move it move it

[PopeRatzo]

I keep the dark chocolate covered prunes, cigarettes, and 15 year-old scotch on the other side of the house, so I have to get up once every half-hour.

By the way, if you've never tried dark chocolate covered prunes, you don't know what you're missing.

https://youtu.be/vuo8kD5zF5I

Re:I like to move it move it

[jandersen]

By the way, if you've never tried dark chocolate covered prunes, you don't know what you're missing.

Hmm, let me guess: dark chocolate gives you palpitations and sleeplessness, whereas prunes give you diarrhea. Am I on the right track?

But what's the relative risk

[alvinrod]

Being twice as likely to die doesn't provide a lot of meaningful information, especially when the raw percentage chance is low. Based on information linked in the study, only about 4% of the study population died over the time period of the study. The only information is that the study was of adults at least 45 years of age so although that may seem high, I'd really want to know what the age distribution is as that could be within expectations for their participants.

Regardless of that, it suggests that even if you are less active (and therefore twice as likely to die) your odds of death still aren't very high in an absolute sense.

Re:But what's the relative risk

[morcego]

That would be an average of aprox. 1% on the low sedentary time/low sedentary bolt end, and about 5% on the high sedentary time/low sedentary bolt end. (Legend: Adjusted cumulative mortality according to joint associations of total sedentary time and prolonged, uninterrupted sedentary bouts).

There paper is much more complete, and is available at DOI: 10.7326/M17-0212 (http://annals.org/aim/article/2653704/patterns-sedentary-behavior-mortality-u-s-middle-a).

Regardless, the paper is absolutely worth reading.

Re:Why did we get this discount?

[chipschap]

It indeed seems like a lot left to the imagination. 12 minutes is a "long" period of inactivity and 7 is "short"? There is a lot of implied precision here which I wonder if the stats fully bear out to a meaningful level of confidence.

I thought I was doing well with the Pomodoro method (in my implementation, 25 minutes of work, 5 minutes of getting up and walking around) but apparently I should be doing 7 minute work intervals?

Perhaps the research is good, I haven't tried to review it in enough detail, but the numbers do stretch credibility a little.

Gee... imagine that.

[mark-t]

Not being sedentary can limit the effects of being sedentary.

(sigh)

I am reminded of the Tautology club, where the first rule of the tautology club was the first rule of the tautology club.

Re:Gee... imagine that.

[thegarbz]

I am reminded of the Tautology club, where the first rule of the tautology club was the first rule of the tautology club.

Not quite. A sedentary life style isn't defined as having to sit perfectly still. You can still be sedentary while doing a small amount of movement every half an hour. The key here is that little bit helps.

Re:Why did we get this discount?

[goose-incarnated]

It indeed seems like a lot left to the imagination. 12 minutes is a "long" period of inactivity and 7 is "short"? There is a lot of implied precision here which I wonder if the stats fully bear out to a meaningful level of confidence.

I thought I was doing well with the Pomodoro method (in my implementation, 25 minutes of work, 5 minutes of getting up and walking around) but apparently I should be doing 7 minute work intervals?

Ironically, smokers may be getting some benefit after all :-) ... I leave me desk and walk down three flights to smoke for 5 minutes (vaping these days, though), then walk back up 3 flights. This happens roughly once every hour.

My old body wants to physically move.

[antdude]

I used to be able to sit for hours, but not anymore after getting older. I noticed my body no longer wants to idle. It want to move around a lot. Also, my health had been degrading so I need to exercise too.

Re:13.2 hours of inactive?

[myid]

I think the number 13.2 is reasonable. For one thing, sleep time isn't counted as part of the time for inactivity. The article says,

... participants were inactive for 12.3 hours of a 16 hour waking day ...

(The article says "12.3" for the average number of inactive hours, and then compares the health results of "13.2" to 11.5.)

Also I don't think most people sit down for an hour for each meal.

Re:Please tell me what "Desk Job" allows one to si

[TeknoHog]

Get a standing desk, so you can focus on your work while allowing your body parts to move around. I've had one for a few years and it was a kind of revelation -- I love computers, but I hate sitting still. While standing, people don't generally stay in a fixed position for very long, so a standing desk forces you to do all kinds of natural movements.

Re:Please tell me what "Desk Job" allows one to si

[thegarbz]

It takes me 5 minutes just to get back "into" my job after getting up for another coffee.

That may be specific to your style. I often think best when moving so when solving some complex problem I go and get coffee, or go to the bathroom and think about it while on the way.

The trick is not getting distracted by conversation.

It's true and here is how I handle it.

[wjcofkc]

I am self-employed and work from home. I started working at around 4:00am work and work until 7:00pm. For the longest time I had myself deskbound most of the day. It started to catch up with me in the form of aches, pains, and fatigue. I am not getting any younger and knew I was setting myself up for trouble. Solution? I pick up my bass several times a day and play the most demanding bass lines until I sweat. The playing bass not only helps me physically, but clears up my thought process. This has increased my productivity and overall well being. Also, I am considering a standing desk, as long as it is convertible.