Slashdot Mirror
Sedentary Lifestyle Study Called 'A Raging Dumpster Fire' (arstechnica.com)
Ars Technica's health reporter argues that a new study suggesting sitting will kill you "is kind of a raging dumpster fire. It's funded by Big Soda and riddled with weaknesses -- including not measuring sitting." An anonymous reader quotes this report:
Let's start with the money: It was funded in part by Coca-Cola... [I]t's hard to look past the fact that this is exactly the type of health and nutrition research Coke wants. In fact, Coca-Cola secretly spent $1.5 million to fund an entire network of academic researchers whose goal was to shift the national health conversation away from the harms of sugary beverages. Instead, their research focused on the benefits of exercise -- i.e., the health risks of sedentary and inactive lifestyles. The research network disbanded after The New York Times published an investigation on the network's funding in 2015...
It didn't actually measure sitting... In their words, "Our study has several limitations. First, the Actical accelerometer cannot distinguish between postures (such as sitting vs. standing); thus, we relied on an intensity-only definition of sedentary behavior." The "intensity-only" definition of sedentary behavior is based on metabolic equivalents, basically units defined by how much oxygen a person uses up doing various activities. But those definitions are also not cut and dried. There are no clear lines between lying down, sitting, standing in place, or light movement... Then there's the participant data: It's not representative -- like, at all... At the time of wearing the accelerometer, the most active group's mean age was 65. The mean age of the least active group: 75.
Groups were assigned based on just a week's worth of data -- or less. And the people placed in the least-active group were already more likely to be smokers, to have diabetes and hypertension, and to have a history of coronary heart disease and stroke.
It didn't actually measure sitting... In their words, "Our study has several limitations. First, the Actical accelerometer cannot distinguish between postures (such as sitting vs. standing); thus, we relied on an intensity-only definition of sedentary behavior." The "intensity-only" definition of sedentary behavior is based on metabolic equivalents, basically units defined by how much oxygen a person uses up doing various activities. But those definitions are also not cut and dried. There are no clear lines between lying down, sitting, standing in place, or light movement... Then there's the participant data: It's not representative -- like, at all... At the time of wearing the accelerometer, the most active group's mean age was 65. The mean age of the least active group: 75.
Groups were assigned based on just a week's worth of data -- or less. And the people placed in the least-active group were already more likely to be smokers, to have diabetes and hypertension, and to have a history of coronary heart disease and stroke.
sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
maybe everything Big is Bad now: Big Pharma, Big Government, and the Big 12
Apparently someone has a seriously big chip on their shoulder.
Exactly how does funding a study that indicates you should do something that is healthy for you a complete and utter sham?
It is not Coca Cola's job to criticise themselves. There are plenty of people out there that will do that regardless.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Doctor: Before I start the examination, tell me a bit about your lifestyle.
Patient: Well, I have a sedimentary job.
Doctor: Do you mean sedentary?
Patient: No, I work in a sandstone quarry.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
But that would've required I get up off the couch - so I calmed myself down.
#DeleteChrome
There should be a great big disclaimer on any medical research post that is funded by a processed foods company. What realistically does any company expect other than an outcome where it makes their product more marketable?
This story exemplifies the way that the internet has become a waste of my time. Decades ago, I would read science articles in Scientific American or Discover Magazine. Since the magazines were only published once a month, the editors had time to fact-check their stories and to ask experts for their opinions. So, when I read an article, it was much more likely to be correct than today.
But what bothers me is not just the fact that Monday's Slashdot story about sitting was incorrect. What really bothers me is the time that I wasted reading it, and archiving a copy on my hard drive.
This is a problem I repeatedly experience with almost all internet news sources. The editors are so eager to publish quickly, that I waste my time reading a lot of incomplete and misleading stories that, decades ago, never would have gotten past an editor's desk.
It's not like it's a giant tire fire or Chernobyl melting down.
er, right?
If these allegations are true, then forever shame on the Annals of Internal Medicine. The entire editorial board and reviewers should be sacked and anyone directly involved with any reviewing of the paper should be black-listed from every participating in any other academic journal. The only value that an academic journal provides is acting as a filter to prevent shoddy research from seeing the light of day.
There's an assumption in Science that when we publish papers, we're able to assume that the people reading our (specialized, idiosyncratic, jargon-laden) work understand the context and limitations of the field we're publishing in.
This is really a horrible assumption.
We could caveat the hell out of every sentence we write, but marketers, reporters, and political activists already ignore us when we do that. TFA here is essentially going back to the original work and pointing out all the caveats the press left out of their articles, but that the actual scientists included. We could double-down on jargon and try to be more like law and medicine - invent enough language to prevent understanding by non-experts. That seems pretty immoral. We could try to educate everyone better, but that's not realistic, no one has time to understand everything. We could just sit on research until we're absolutely certain it's right. That's going to require some fundamental changes to the way research is funded and careers are managed. If we stop taking money from people with ulterior motives, there will literally be no one to fund us.
What do we do? Do we just continue being pawns in these corporate and political games?
It can't.
They measured METS (activity) but there is no correlation between METS and position. Sitting, standing, lying down all are low activity (low METS) so they had no idea if a person was standing at a desk or lying down on the sofa.
Activity is good for you.
Soda is bad for you.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
I get it. Coca Cola is shifting the blame away from sugary drinks. This study also is loaded with junk science. But ... isn't this basically a forgone conclusion anyway?
I mean do we really need a study regardless of source of funding or quality of science to tell us that sitting on our asses isn't healthy? You don't need to study that directly when you look at all the other health science out there, and the fact that it was funded by Coca Cola doesn't change the fact either.
I frankly don't care that the funding came from a sugar drink company, it wasn't assessing the effect of sugar. I'm sad that the study was junk, but frankly I don't care much that the attention was shifted from drinks providing science is done.
"Sit down for this - study about sitting doesn't sit well."
It's the same way that insurance companies have got people thinking that insurance = health care. The so-called health care debate isn't about health care, it's about insurance and when people eventually realize that, if ever, we might manage to make some progress toward getting insurance companies out of the way of delivering health care.
And the way they've inserted themselves in the process is something that you never hear the talking heads, on *either* side, have any real discussion about. Its always about who is supposed to pay for this "insurance," not why its so critical to the billing/pricing structure that normal people simply cannot afford any healthcare without it.
My last vacation was the 2013 Las Vegas Star Trek convention. My next vacation will be the 2018 Las Vegas Star Trek convention.*
* If ticket prices are affordable. I paid $500 for the Captain's Chair package in 2013. The convention organizer wants $1,000 in 2018. Nuts!
Mine was in 1987. Sucks that we can't take time off while Indians get three+ weeks off to fly home. Yes, I understand the flights home are expensive and take a lot of time, but why should we pay dearly for that?
An Indian coworker told me it took him 36 hours to fly from the U.S., land in India and drive to his remote village.
(Ironically topical failure to properly asses cause and effect.)
I know that this is a sham study and that Soda wants to tell us that our (lack of) movement is what's killing us and not their intensely, artificially sweetened beverages forced upon us by pervasive advertising ...
BUT
I thought we all agreed that being sedentary was generally not good for our bodies?
And yes, I am just as guilty as everyone else. I'm a programmer who is loathe to move anything more than my pinky to the ESC to enter control mode in VI(M).
Will
remove nospam. to email!
So quit working for startups then. Or at least work for some better ones. You couldn't figure that out in 23 years?
Mine was in 1987. Sucks that we can't take time off while Indians get three+ weeks off to fly home. Yes, I understand the flights home are expensive and take a lot of time, but why should we pay dearly for that?
I was an overseas worker myself once, in Asia. My time off, and the length of the airline-plus-road trip Stateside was comparable, especially considering that "home" was not a single destination, but a pilgrimage among several relatives.
Meanwhile, back on the job, everyone worked on Saturdays, but at the same time locals had a much larger number of miscellaneous holidays that we do not get, and which for the most part I was too busy to take. Every culture has its own attitude on life/work balance.
And think about the once-mighty herds of nauga that had to die to make those chairs.
Actually, 1 kcal = 1 Cal, calories and Calories are different, horrifically.
The first is the base energy unit, and it defined via the gram.
The second, or Food Calorie, or Dietary Calorie, is defined by the kg, and is 1000 times larger.
You were only an upper case letter off though ;)
Yes, it is very very stupid.
(Ironically topical failure to properly asses cause and effect.)
Ironically, if you worked less you mightn't have to apply "topical" / "asses" so much.
(yes, I know we have standards here on /. – but this was asking for it)
Americans have been sitting motionless in front of TVs for hours each night for the past 50 years. Why would sitting in front of a computer be any more sedentary / unhealthy? And how could anyone measure the marginal difference between the two, since many of us do both at the same time?
I sit, therefore I am.
I'm pretty sure a simple accelerometer can distinguish between standing and sitting in practice, because in a standing job, you will be moving around much more. Unless you're something like a soldier on guard duty standing in attention for hours.
I'm tired of posting the same thing again and again, but I guess it's not obvious until you try it: a standing desk makes you want to move, and IMHO it can help with some attention disorders to some extent. So it's much more than simply about different postures -- or maybe it is, because you'll have lots of slightly different postures while standing.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
There are so many things wrong with this, I started by fixing the grammar, just so I could see the sky.
Sky, this is Horizon. Horizon, this is Sky.
Sun, this is Moon. Moon, this is Sun.
Saskatchewan, this is Easter Island. Easter Island, this is Saskatchewan.
_____
Easter Island: Wow! What a lot of dirt and grass!
Saskatchewan: Wow! What a lot of salt and water!
Easter Island: You can see miles and miles!
Saskatchewan: Do I have to climb this damn statue for a better view? You do know, I'm a little bit afraid of heights ...
Easter Island: But you're 3000 feet higher up already!
Saskatchewan: Come to think of it, I did once climb to the top of a giant snow hummock behind the skating rink. You get much snow here? Maybe I'll just wait for winter, and then check out the 360 degree ocean observatory.
Easter Island: Well, there's always nuclear winter, but I don't think nuclear winter will improve the view.
So essentially what you're saying is that they negotiated a better deal than you, and instead of blaming your employer, who is actually not giving you the time off you want, or yourself, for not negotiating it, you are blaming them, for succeeding at it.
I say this not to be mean to you, but just to point out to you that there is a knob here you can turn, and it's not blaming your Indian colleague. If you aren't worth enough to the company that you can negotiate three weeks a year off, then figure out what company you can be valuable enough to that you can negotiate that amount of time of (or, ideally, more).
What I see in Silicon Valley is that people are "at work" all the time, but spend a lot of it on /., because their goal in being "at work" is to appear to be at work, not to get work done. This is totally counterproductive: you are living indoors because of peer pressure. Fuck peer pressure. If they don't like it that you work eight hours a day, get a different job. If the recruiter gives you hints that they want you at the office working all day, don't even interview for that job. Have a little faith in yourself.
no shit, there are tons of companies out there where engineers work 9-5. they just don't pay top of market. if you want facebook dollars you work facebook hours.
same thing in law (wachtel lipton versus perkins coie) or finance (goldman versus in-house finance) etc.
> not allowing any vacation time off, of course this is what we get.
I could comment on how bogus that is but it's not really necessary. Exercise is something you make time for if necessary. Vacations really have nothing to do about it. Even being a workaholic is irrelevant.
Desk jobs are nothing new.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I'm happy that the number of trolls went from two dozen to three (or six if you include the health nuts).
is not bad for you then?
That is good to know. Thanks Ars!
Ima quit cycling and watch more TV.
The company I'm currently working at has a core principal that says, in as many words, that if you're seeing people working long hours or working on weekends, then your company is fundamentally broken.
And they're serious abut it. Stuff gets done, but no one works long hours or puts in time on a weekend. If there's an emergency, then sure, people will work the issue until it's fixed, but that almost never happens.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
And think about the once-mighty herds of nauga that had to die to make those chairs.
Now I hear they're hunting the magnificent Pleather beasts into near extinction. Pretty soon the Formica mines will close down too, and that's when we'll know the end is near.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
That's not an assumption in science--the rule is you write the paper so an undergrad in the field should be able to understand it with some work, and you, the reader are expected to educate your own sorry ass. Expecting readers to be capable of obtaining the background information for themselves is not and should not be a 'horrible assumption,' especially now when the internet makes it eminently easy for somebody to learn a good amount of the background they might need on their own if they care to do so.
Marketing and political activists will believe whatever they want, regardless of the research, so there's really no point in trying to do anything about this beyond encouraging people to be properly skeptical of the claims those two groups make. As for reporters, well, you're not going to improve the quality of science journalism until you start insisting that science journalists know the field they're reporting on sufficiently well to do good work.
The first step in that? Do not click the clickbait.
It's irrelevant at the "true or not" stage who funded it. It should not be heavily implied that just because someone funds a study that accrues to their interests it is ipso facto a worthless one. Truth pivots on reality, not who is saying it.
Guilt by association is not a good way to reason through things. Even if it later turns out to be of concern after actually taking the time to put emotions aside and apply logic to its findings.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Mean age was 75, very short sample size measured in a week, possibly two?
Scientifically that's useless for something like this. Might work for the life of a mealworm, flies, things with a very short life span. Not people, and people about ready to die shouldn't be used.
will post the study results well in advance of the research of the actual study/study group itself. Then after everyone believes it there will be a little retracted article a year later that probably 1% of the original readers will even see/hear of.
25, even.
I don't know what's up with these. They're all AC, they always come up in every time someone starts talking jobs, and they're all gloomy and helpless. It's like Marvin the android. "Oh, this diode's been hurting me for a million years, but I'll just leave it alone and moan."
Sometimes I think it was a comments bot set up by the former overlords (Dice) just to make people antsy to find new jobs. Then I think it's a comment bot put forth by some super-villain CEO, designed to get us to NOT look for new jobs, because ours are better than those sad saps.
Then the other ones come in, which start saying that their lives are terrible, but their co-workers from India get treated like lords. And I assume that's either racism or anti-H-1B, or dual purpose. But it's pretty ridiculous, and since they're all AC and in this space span a quarter century, I'm pretty convinced it's lies. I mean, if nothing else, somebody with that attitude ought to have been fired in under a decade, even *if* they're taking absurd levels of abuse.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Sure, exercise is something to make time for. So's cooking healthy, along with things like paying attention to family and friends and doing necessary household chores and sleeping, and this has to fit around commuting and work. At some point, all this is going to break down and people will ditch activities. Frazzled people often can't get up the energy to exercise (despite its ability to lower stress).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes