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.
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."
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?
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.
What's there to fix? Money was paid, a study was done, the science was reviewed and determined to be garbage. The conclusion hasn't changed (other better studies come to the same conclusion about sedentary life styles).
There's nothing in science to fix as evident by this self-regulating result.
So quit working for startups then. Or at least work for some better ones. You couldn't figure that out in 23 years?
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...
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