7 ms·

How Sitting For Long Periods Affects Your Metabolism

132 points by Cyclone_ 8y ago

manojlds 8y ago
Very confusing article. At first I thought it is trying to say that if you are sitting for long periods, exercise can be bad for you. What it's actually saying is that more you sit, less effective the exercise is.
- ams6110 8y ago
  Maybe this explains why exercise never makes me feel "better" just more tired.
  - georgemcbay 8y ago
    Do you stick with it on a regular schedule? No science here, but anecdotally if I've been slacking off on exercise and then restart, I feel pretty tired/terrible at first. After a few weeks of regular routine exercise though, it flips and I feel tired/terrible when I don't exercise and energized when I do exercise.
    - Taylor_OD 8y ago
      Same. About three weeks of consistent exercise (three times a week) and I'm back in, "fighting" shape. Those three weeks suck but after that, it almost sucks not to work out.
    - otikik 8y ago
      I have the same experience. My threshold seems to be about 8 days - meaning that I can resume exercise more or less ok after slacking (or being ill) for 8 days, but after 10 days it costs a lot more and I feel worse afterwards. Of course it is more like a ramp than a binary thing, but there's a "step" around the 9th day in the graph.
davimack 8y ago
I am always conflicted when I see something in here linking to globe n mail, particularly when the article is basically utter garbage, without any amount of research involved in it whatsoever. While there may be truth in there, it is certainly not worthy of even scanning the piece.
superpermutat0r 8y ago
I wonder if intensity matters. What would the response be if instead of treadmill one lifted weights with high intensity.
- dinduks 8y ago
  It depends on the fitness level of the subjects. The more fit they are, the less low intensity exercise (treadmill) is effective. More info here: https://roguehealthandfitness.com/importance-exercise-intensity/?print=print https://roguehealthandfitness.com/importance-exercise-intens...
  - 52-6F-62 8y ago
    Also depends on how you use it. If slow, long jogs aren't cutting it—hit the sprints. 20 seconds on (full out), 30 seconds off (medium-light pace), or some similar interval.
Darmani 8y ago
This report triggered several of my alarm bells, so I investigated further. I had a look at the quoted study. "RESULTS: No differences between trials ( P > 0.05) were found in the overall plasma triglyceride, glucose, or insulin responses during the HFGTT. " It takes some balls to dismiss a study based on one sentence in the abstract, but this is an admission of a common and fatal mistake, so I'm going to do exactly that. They're claiming there is no difference between groups because they were unable to show that, if there was an inherent difference, the chance they'd see these results is at most 5%. There's an easy way to obtain such a result: small sample size. And, indeed, they only compared 2 groups of 5 people. There is a proper way to show two groups are the same, and it's called "equivalence testing." It has the same kind of statistical requirements that normal testing does. What they did instead is totally statically invalid. There's not a soft way to put it: this study proves nothing. Let it be an example in training your defenses against bad science.
- glastra 8y ago
  The results themselves are not wrong per se. Reaching this conclusion from those results, however, is frankly insulting and should make all authors of the paper ashamed. > These data indicate that physical inactivity (e.g., sitting ~13.5 hrs/day and <4,000 steps/day) creates a condition whereby people become "resistant" to the metabolic improvements that are typically derived from an acute bout of aerobic exercise (i.e., exercise resistance). Also note that the researchers _immediately_ re-fed the group who participated in the intense exercise: > The additional energy expenditure from the exercise session was estimated via indirect calorimetry. This energy was then replaced with additional caloric intake with the post-exercise dinner (Clif® Builder’s®; ~40%/30%/30% of calories from carbohydrate, fat, and protein, respectively). This is especially bad because it isn't mentioned anywhere in the abstract (I checked the full-text). Shit science.
- cjslep 8y ago
  I also wanted to dig into this. The null hypothesis and burden-of-proofs change between p tests and equivalence testing, right? P tests: null hypothesis is that there is nothing different, burden of proof to suggest there is a difference. Equivalence testing: null hypothesis is that there is something different, burden of proof to suggest there is no difference. But maybe this is just a misapplied p-test? So while the "RESULTS" section of the paper is fine: No differences between trials ( P > 0.05) were found in the overall plasma triglyceride, glucose, or insulin responses during the HFGTT. The "CONCLUSION" section is where they invert the statistics of their own study and literally suggest a p-test-able difference despite their results section literally concluding a p-test-able non-difference: These data indicate that physical inactivity (e.g., sitting ~13.5 hrs/day and <4,000 steps/day) creates a condition whereby people become "resistant" to the metabolic improvements that are typically derived from an acute bout of aerobic exercise (i.e., exercise resistance).
dinduks 8y ago
This kind of articles are just another excuse for paralysis by analysis and for people to stay fat. Most of the time, your metabolism doesn't matter. And it never matters if you train with high intensity and have a decent muscle mass.
loblollyboy 8y ago
13 hrs is a f*ton of sitting even for an office job. Anyway I was just given a standing desk and I feel way better at 5PM.
YawningAngel 8y ago
The study in question limited participants to 4,000 steps a day for four days. That's an absurdly low level of exercise to undertake.
- Raphmedia 8y ago
  Is it that absurd? During the coldest months of winter I would wake up and eat breakfast (sitting), jump in the car (sitting), commute to the office (sitting). Once at the office I sit for 8h. Then car again (sitting). Back home I prepare food (standing!) and then eat it (sitting). I then spent the rest of the day either sitting on the couch or at the computer. Weekends could get even worst if it was a snowstorm day. Wake up, eat, sit in front of Netflix and then back to sleep. Now that spring is in the air my steps are raising back up.
  - rc_hadoken 8y ago
    You sit for 8 hours...straight? No. You also seem somewhat proud for not being active...why make your family go through the drawbacks earlier than necessary? Not to mention the future medical costs (not just money but time)
    - Raphmedia 8y ago
      It's not about being proud, it's about showing how having such a behavior is not absurd. I don't walk around talking about my inactivity. In my case, that's only two months a year. Someone else might be that inactive for the entire year. Think older people, people with disabilities, physical or mental health issues, etc. Sure, I don't sit for 8 hours a day while at the office but it's pretty close to it. I have a 30 minute lunch where I walk to the cafeteria and stand while waiting for the microwave. I also have a 15 minute break in the afternoon where I walk to the most comfortable spot of the building and back again. When it's not -22ºF outdoor I squeeze some outdoor walking time in during those breaks. I hate stationary cardio on machines and can't stand harsh cold weather. My exercise is done hiking up trails during spring, summer and fall.
- parmesan 8y ago
magnamerc 8y ago
Exercise should only be for cardiovascular health. If you have an unfavorable energy imbalance, i.e. you're gaining weight, then you need to eat less by extending your time between meals. It's as 'simple' as that. Not easy, but simple. The 'easiest' solution is to go through periods of intermittent fasting. Either skip breakfast+lunch most days, or take a few days off eating entirely. People need to stop dieting, and they need to start 'not eating'. Our society consumes too much food.
- radar 8y ago
  Depending on your present calorie consumption you can start reducing calories by really concentrating on the fats you're including in your everyday diet. I'm not saying fats are bad, but that there is double the calories per unit of fat versus carbs and protein. Start concentrating on replacing some of those fats with purer protein and high fiber foods. This way you've already reduced calories, but not how much you're eating. I started with getting out of the habit of always having whole milk on hand at home, for example. You'd be surprised by how much you can curb your appetite by just leaning a bit more on high fiber foods and protein. I combined this with being more mindful of how much I exercised that day. If I did exercise that day I don't use it as an excuse to binge eat anything. I also try to push breakfast out until around 10am (I wake up around 7am, and usually stop eating by 8pm the previous day). Not sure if that counts as fasting, but it works for me. I tried 16 hours of fasting (basically no eating until lunch) and I just ended up binge-eating the calories I saved by not eating. Your mileage may vary. After getting to work I have about a quart of water, then a coffee. If I feel on the edge of "I need a snack" sometimes it can be enough to just have another pint of water in response to that feeling. Last, I really tried to get an understanding for how many calories are in particular foods and how many calories I really need per day. Use a calorie calculator to get a feeling for how much you burn while doing certain exercises. Learn how many calories are in common items that you eat all the time. Find optimizations if they are particularly high in calories. Then, after you've learned a bit, stop stressing about the numbers, take your newfound knowledge and see how you do.
  - bootsz 8y ago
    My opinion, from my own experience: Sure, that definitely works. But the choice of cutting fat is kind of arbitrary. You can do the same with sugar & carbs and get basically the same result w.r.t weight loss. I think this illuminates the real underlying issue with modern diets which is not that we eat "too much of X", but rather "too much of everything, too frequently". Approaches like this work not because "fat is bad" or "carbs are bad", but because they provide a simple, concrete framework for diet choices that ends up reducing overall calorie consumption.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

132 points by Cyclone_ 8y ago

Very confusing article. At first I thought it is trying to say that if you are sitting for long periods, exercise can be bad for you. What it's actually saying is that more you sit, less effective the exercise is.

ams6110 8y ago
Maybe this explains why exercise never makes me feel "better" just more tired.
- georgemcbay 8y ago
  Do you stick with it on a regular schedule? No science here, but anecdotally if I've been slacking off on exercise and then restart, I feel pretty tired/terrible at first. After a few weeks of regular routine exercise though, it flips and I feel tired/terrible when I don't exercise and energized when I do exercise.
  - Taylor_OD 8y ago
    Same. About three weeks of consistent exercise (three times a week) and I'm back in, "fighting" shape. Those three weeks suck but after that, it almost sucks not to work out.
  - otikik 8y ago
    I have the same experience. My threshold seems to be about 8 days - meaning that I can resume exercise more or less ok after slacking (or being ill) for 8 days, but after 10 days it costs a lot more and I feel worse afterwards. Of course it is more like a ramp than a binary thing, but there's a "step" around the 9th day in the graph.

davimack 8y ago

I am always conflicted when I see something in here linking to globe n mail, particularly when the article is basically utter garbage, without any amount of research involved in it whatsoever. While there may be truth in there, it is certainly not worthy of even scanning the piece.

superpermutat0r 8y ago

I wonder if intensity matters. What would the response be if instead of treadmill one lifted weights with high intensity.

dinduks 8y ago
It depends on the fitness level of the subjects. The more fit they are, the less low intensity exercise (treadmill) is effective. More info here: https://roguehealthandfitness.com/importance-exercise-intensity/?print=print https://roguehealthandfitness.com/importance-exercise-intens...
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  Also depends on how you use it. If slow, long jogs aren't cutting it—hit the sprints. 20 seconds on (full out), 30 seconds off (medium-light pace), or some similar interval.

Darmani 8y ago

This report triggered several of my alarm bells, so I investigated further. I had a look at the quoted study. "RESULTS: No differences between trials ( P > 0.05) were found in the overall plasma triglyceride, glucose, or insulin responses during the HFGTT. " It takes some balls to dismiss a study based on one sentence in the abstract, but this is an admission of a common and fatal mistake, so I'm going to do exactly that. They're claiming there is no difference between groups because they were unable to show that, if there was an inherent difference, the chance they'd see these results is at most 5%. There's an easy way to obtain such a result: small sample size. And, indeed, they only compared 2 groups of 5 people. There is a proper way to show two groups are the same, and it's called "equivalence testing." It has the same kind of statistical requirements that normal testing does. What they did instead is totally statically invalid. There's not a soft way to put it: this study proves nothing. Let it be an example in training your defenses against bad science.

glastra 8y ago
The results themselves are not wrong per se. Reaching this conclusion from those results, however, is frankly insulting and should make all authors of the paper ashamed. > These data indicate that physical inactivity (e.g., sitting ~13.5 hrs/day and <4,000 steps/day) creates a condition whereby people become "resistant" to the metabolic improvements that are typically derived from an acute bout of aerobic exercise (i.e., exercise resistance). Also note that the researchers _immediately_ re-fed the group who participated in the intense exercise: > The additional energy expenditure from the exercise session was estimated via indirect calorimetry. This energy was then replaced with additional caloric intake with the post-exercise dinner (Clif® Builder’s®; ~40%/30%/30% of calories from carbohydrate, fat, and protein, respectively). This is especially bad because it isn't mentioned anywhere in the abstract (I checked the full-text). Shit science.
cjslep 8y ago
I also wanted to dig into this. The null hypothesis and burden-of-proofs change between p tests and equivalence testing, right? P tests: null hypothesis is that there is nothing different, burden of proof to suggest there is a difference. Equivalence testing: null hypothesis is that there is something different, burden of proof to suggest there is no difference. But maybe this is just a misapplied p-test? So while the "RESULTS" section of the paper is fine: No differences between trials ( P > 0.05) were found in the overall plasma triglyceride, glucose, or insulin responses during the HFGTT. The "CONCLUSION" section is where they invert the statistics of their own study and literally suggest a p-test-able difference despite their results section literally concluding a p-test-able non-difference: These data indicate that physical inactivity (e.g., sitting ~13.5 hrs/day and <4,000 steps/day) creates a condition whereby people become "resistant" to the metabolic improvements that are typically derived from an acute bout of aerobic exercise (i.e., exercise resistance).

dinduks 8y ago

This kind of articles are just another excuse for paralysis by analysis and for people to stay fat. Most of the time, your metabolism doesn't matter. And it never matters if you train with high intensity and have a decent muscle mass.

loblollyboy 8y ago

13 hrs is a f*ton of sitting even for an office job. Anyway I was just given a standing desk and I feel way better at 5PM.

YawningAngel 8y ago

The study in question limited participants to 4,000 steps a day for four days. That's an absurdly low level of exercise to undertake.

Raphmedia 8y ago
Is it that absurd? During the coldest months of winter I would wake up and eat breakfast (sitting), jump in the car (sitting), commute to the office (sitting). Once at the office I sit for 8h. Then car again (sitting). Back home I prepare food (standing!) and then eat it (sitting). I then spent the rest of the day either sitting on the couch or at the computer. Weekends could get even worst if it was a snowstorm day. Wake up, eat, sit in front of Netflix and then back to sleep. Now that spring is in the air my steps are raising back up.
- rc_hadoken 8y ago
  You sit for 8 hours...straight? No. You also seem somewhat proud for not being active...why make your family go through the drawbacks earlier than necessary? Not to mention the future medical costs (not just money but time)
  - Raphmedia 8y ago
    It's not about being proud, it's about showing how having such a behavior is not absurd. I don't walk around talking about my inactivity. In my case, that's only two months a year. Someone else might be that inactive for the entire year. Think older people, people with disabilities, physical or mental health issues, etc. Sure, I don't sit for 8 hours a day while at the office but it's pretty close to it. I have a 30 minute lunch where I walk to the cafeteria and stand while waiting for the microwave. I also have a 15 minute break in the afternoon where I walk to the most comfortable spot of the building and back again. When it's not -22ºF outdoor I squeeze some outdoor walking time in during those breaks. I hate stationary cardio on machines and can't stand harsh cold weather. My exercise is done hiking up trails during spring, summer and fall.
parmesan 8y ago

magnamerc 8y ago

Exercise should only be for cardiovascular health. If you have an unfavorable energy imbalance, i.e. you're gaining weight, then you need to eat less by extending your time between meals. It's as 'simple' as that. Not easy, but simple. The 'easiest' solution is to go through periods of intermittent fasting. Either skip breakfast+lunch most days, or take a few days off eating entirely. People need to stop dieting, and they need to start 'not eating'. Our society consumes too much food.

radar 8y ago
Depending on your present calorie consumption you can start reducing calories by really concentrating on the fats you're including in your everyday diet. I'm not saying fats are bad, but that there is double the calories per unit of fat versus carbs and protein. Start concentrating on replacing some of those fats with purer protein and high fiber foods. This way you've already reduced calories, but not how much you're eating. I started with getting out of the habit of always having whole milk on hand at home, for example. You'd be surprised by how much you can curb your appetite by just leaning a bit more on high fiber foods and protein. I combined this with being more mindful of how much I exercised that day. If I did exercise that day I don't use it as an excuse to binge eat anything. I also try to push breakfast out until around 10am (I wake up around 7am, and usually stop eating by 8pm the previous day). Not sure if that counts as fasting, but it works for me. I tried 16 hours of fasting (basically no eating until lunch) and I just ended up binge-eating the calories I saved by not eating. Your mileage may vary. After getting to work I have about a quart of water, then a coffee. If I feel on the edge of "I need a snack" sometimes it can be enough to just have another pint of water in response to that feeling. Last, I really tried to get an understanding for how many calories are in particular foods and how many calories I really need per day. Use a calorie calculator to get a feeling for how much you burn while doing certain exercises. Learn how many calories are in common items that you eat all the time. Find optimizations if they are particularly high in calories. Then, after you've learned a bit, stop stressing about the numbers, take your newfound knowledge and see how you do.
- bootsz 8y ago
  My opinion, from my own experience: Sure, that definitely works. But the choice of cutting fat is kind of arbitrary. You can do the same with sugar & carbs and get basically the same result w.r.t weight loss. I think this illuminates the real underlying issue with modern diets which is not that we eat "too much of X", but rather "too much of everything, too frequently". Approaches like this work not because "fat is bad" or "carbs are bad", but because they provide a simple, concrete framework for diet choices that ends up reducing overall calorie consumption.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]