11 ms·

You are probably sitting down for too long

60 points by trott 2y ago

fred_is_fred 2y ago
Don't wave the false flag of "WFH" for this one. When I am home I can easily walk to the coffee pot, wander around, pace, etc. I can also take 10 mins to walk the dog or put away laundry etc. This quick break is harder at work for me. In either environment, I am on Teams calls regardless.
deterministic 2y ago
Nope. Sitting down is a great way for you to rest and focus. The real problem is that when you regularly put your body into any specific position for a long time, you really need to stretch the opposite position to make sure your muscles stay flexible instead of locking up. I spend a lot of time sitting at work and home. So I make sure I always inverse the stiffing muscles by stretching the inverse position. Just stretching 5 min a day (and going for a 30+ minute walk) fixed the problems I previously had.
mark4 2y ago
On a tangential topic, is there another way of sitting, like sitting up? Why do English require qualifying with "down" so frequently?
- noam_k 2y ago
  When my daughter is standing, I tell her to sit down. When she slouches in her chair, I tell her to sit up. (I'm American, and curious if British have similar/differing expressions.)
  - dnel 2y ago
    It's the same in the King's English
    - from-nibly 2y ago
      Oh yeah it's the kings English now. My whole life it's been the Queen's English. Weird.
      - Aachen 2y ago
        It's still queen's day to me in the Netherlands. Women in respected positions is cooler than men anyway
- mkartic 2y ago
  Both 'sit up' and 'stand down' mean very specific things. But yeah, unqualified 'sitting' & 'standing' definitely don't need that disambiguation.
- bowsamic 2y ago
  See separable verbs in German. There are a huge number of particles that completely change the meaning of verbs. For example sehen = to see, aussehen = to look (like)
  - bowsamic 2y ago
    WHY WHY WHY did I get downvoted for this????
- o11c 2y ago
  Adverbial particles are certainly interesting, and widely used in English. Sometimes they are mandatory for a verb; othertimes they are redundant or change the meaning. Sometimes they take no direct object, but if they take it there are 3 places it can be (before, after, or size-dependent): For "sit" we have a wide variety: * plain "sit" - a variety of meanings, most intransitive. Notably means "relax" unlike the other forms. Note that it can be followed by a preposition with the same spelling as the particles below (e.g. "sit down the hall") * "sit down" - physical movement, also used for meetings. When transitive, the DO always goes before the particle. * "sit up" - physical movement (from "slouching" or "lying down"), always intransitive. A following "with" is sometimes analyzed as another particle but could just be a preposition. * "sit in" - protest, temporarily attend. Always(?) intransitive (if followed by an object it is the object of preposition "in", not particle "in"); often followed by an "on", "for", or "with" prepositional phrase (though those are sometimes analyzed as additional particles instead) * "sit off" - not putting full effort in sports. Always transitive, with the DO always after the particle. I'm not familiar with this personally. * "sit out" - not participate. When transitive, the DO goes before the particle if short (by default, no more than determiner + object), but after if long. So, usually "sit the game out" with "sit out the whole game", but it is possible to stretch the definition of "short" slightly. Plus some others that are sometimes analyzed as adverbial particles but can also be analyzed as normal adverbs or prepositions: * "sit around"/"sit about" - idle. Usually intransitive, so can also be analyzed as a normal adverb, but can also be transitive (usually followed by "the house") which would make it a preposition ... Related, I utterly reject the abomination that analyzes words as prepositions when they don't have an object. * "sit back" - relax or recline. Intransitive, so can also be analyzed as a normal adverb. * "sit [idly] by" - refrain from intervening. Intransitive, so can also be analyzed as a normal adverb. * "sit for" - babysit or model for. Transitive. I strongly dispute this analysis since the preposition interpretation provides all the meaning already ... especially given the similarity to "hold office for" which I haven't seen analyzed this way. * "sit on" - delay, restrain, take no action. Transitive and the DO follows, so "on" can also be analyzed as a preposition. * "sit over" - make room (intransitive), be left of and thus play cards after (transitive), burden (transitive) * "sit under" - be right of and thus play cards before (transitive), learn from a religious teacher (transitive) * "sit through" - remain through something unpleasant. Transitive and the DO follows, so maybe "through" is just a preposition. * "sit with" - harmonize, reflect. Transitive and the DO follows, so maybe "with" is just a preposition
- jjtheblunt 2y ago
  i think chair versus bar stool when i see that, with legs and bend at hip different positions. not clear if that's what was meant, though.
levocardia 2y ago
Of note: the issue is not so much sitting in particular, it's being sedentary. Standing for 5 hrs at a time is really not much better than sitting for that same duration, since humans are (understandably) well-adapted to stand upright with minimal metabolic cost. Sitting is bad because it displaces physical activity, not because there is something uniquely bad about being in a chair. Take a walk break.
- wanderingstan 2y ago
  > Sitting is bad because it displaces physical activity… This is at odds with the article, which states: > Since 2010, researchers have been keen to point out that sedentary behaviour is distinct from a lack of physical activity. You can get sufficient exercise per day, and still sit for too long.
  - culi 2y ago
    I think this is confounding the two points. I don't think GP was talking about "exercise per day" but rather long periods of time of sedentarism. The quote from the article doesn't at all dispute the proposed point that "standing still for a long period of time can also be harmful"
- cb321 2y ago
  While the default is probably minimal metabolic cost, there are people I have seen who are more prone to shift their weight constantly while standing.. Almost a foot-motionless dance who are -- if doing it all day long -- probably burning serious calories that way. While I imagine you could adapt the same to a sitting posture, you're a lot less likely to be working against your whole body weight. This observation probably applies to (some of) those "standing desk" people, too.
- loeg 2y ago
  Some of the mechanisms they talk about are specific to sitting. But I don't know if they've made the connection between those specific mechanisms and outcomes, or if they're just theoretical.
- 2y ago
elric 2y ago
What about sitting without chairs? Like squatting, or seiza, or legs crossed? Those are sort of active(-ish) forms of sitting.
- vishalontheline 2y ago
  I recently swapped out my office chair for a coffee table. It allows me to sit without back support in a variety of positions - cross legged, feet on the ground, sometimes with my hands supporting me.. even hunched over if I'm being a bit lazy / sucked into whatever is happening on screen. The results have been almost instantaneous - back feels stronger, I'm not as stiff overall - general mobility and flexibility is better. Took a week or so to get used to. Initially I wanted to get up and go find a couch a lot. Now I can sit for hours, but like you mentioned - with the small movements - it's never totally sedentary.
  - elric 2y ago
    I wonder if all those ergonomic chairs are a mistake. I mean they sure all comfortable, with all the support everywhere, but I'm beginning to think they might be worse for you than a plain old wooden chair.
    - vishalontheline 2y ago
      It's easier to stay awake on something that does not provide back support, that's for sure. Heavy lunch? No problem!
loeg 2y ago
The whole interesting part of the article to me is the (mostly unexamined) claim that sitting is still a problem in the exercising population. Everything afterwards is hypothetical discussion of mechanisms without looking at outcomes (at least for exercise vs no-exercise groups). > Since 2010, researchers have been keen to point out that sedentary behaviour is distinct from a lack of physical activity. You can get sufficient exercise per day, and still sit for too long. They could have delved into this a little more! The link is to a 2021 review (not 2010). Did they somehow RCT people into exercise vs no-exercise groups, or is this observational? Is it really just that our "active" guidelines are too low (30 minutes a day) and sort of assume a baseline active job during the other hours? (E.g., maybe guidelines should call for 2-3 hours of activity a day, some of which can be covered by non-sedentary jobs.) Anyway, just trying to figure out what to take away from this as an office worker who gets 1.5-2 hours of exercise a day.
- keybored 2y ago
  That Sitting Too Much Is Bad Even If You Exercise has been discussed for maybe more than ten years now. There’s nothing particularly “interesting” about not substantiating it in a BBC article. And how would exercise compensate for sitting too much? That doesn’t make sense on the face of it. Exercise primarily builds strength and cardiovascular conditioning. It doesn’t (on the face of it) compensate for sitting at least eight hours a weekday if you’re an office worker[1] in addition to sedentary hobbies. Again from my naive perspective: sitting shortens the hip flexor which in turn can lead to anterior pelvic tilt which in turn can compress the lower back/spine both while sitting and while walking around (active). That’s just one example of a biomechanical conditioning that doesn’t just get fixed by exercise, or at least not without directed exercise (try to notice sometime how many people have an S-arched back as opposed to a more neutral (slight sway) lower back). [1] Shout out to managers who get the opportunity to “walk and talk”.
scrapcode 2y ago
I went from a pretty physically active job in facilities management to an IT role working from home about 3 years ago and have had a slew of physical issues that I think are related to sitting down 10+ hours a day such as sciatica. I real a book called "Deskbound: Standing Up to a Sitting World" by Dr. Kelly Starrett and it's pretty damning. Similar to the old comparison that smoking a cigarette takes ~7 minutes off of your life, they claim that every hour you sit down takes ~11 minutes off of your life. Regardless of everything I have read about sitting down being terrible for you, I just can't seem to get into a routine of standing up. Once I sit down for an engagement / lunch / etc., I just simply don't make it back up that day. I have become terribly lazy, I guess.
- knallfrosch 2y ago
  Have you considered a standing desk (one where you can adjust the height)? I don't have one and don't use the one I have in the office, but still.
  - scrapcode 2y ago
    I do have an adjustable standing desk. I have tried days where the goal was to stand all day, but it just doesn't work out that way. Once I sit down and get in the "zone," the next thing I know the day is over.
  - deterministic 2y ago
    Standing up all day is really bad for you. Much worse than sitting.
  - pjerem 2y ago
    I did. It remains in seated position. Not because I don’t want to use it but rather that being standing without moving is rapidly uncomfortable and also bad for health. Yes you can alternate. But that’s just annoying. The hard truth is that we are made to move and to move on purpose but that’s not what the society wants us to do. Standing desks and all are just hacks, not the panacea.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
jFriedensreich 2y ago
apple watch and a walking pad with standing desk really changed my life. i tried all three individually but only since i have all three combined do i really naturally embed walking in my work life. the watch reminds every hour in which i did not get up, tracks progress and gives feeling of reward and accomplishments, the walking pad allows standing without having to change legs and hurting feet and walking on a standing desk allows to continue entertainment or most work tasks. I now dont spend any day without 2h / 8km walking. There is just something that feels different in my energy and sense of happiness when moving throughout a day.
swatcoder 2y ago
It shouldn't surprise anyone that countless hours-per-day held in a static posture is right there with repetitive motion in terms of health consequences. Both are a kind of bizarre thing to do, and it's hard to imagine that human evolution had much opportunity to optimize for any particular sustained posture or deeply repetitive motion when much broader variety seems to be the norm throughout most of culture and history. You wouldn't expect an hour of doing something else, however vigorous or dynamic, to really overcome the consequences of such a contrived routine. If you want care about this stuff (it's fair not to; you'll still live as long as your peers if you don't), you do just need to figure out how to make frequent, non-repetitive movement part of your day.
- Aachen 2y ago
  That we didn't evolve to read doesn't mean I don't enjoy a book or it can't be healthy for me to relax in that escape. This is not a useful predictor for whether or not something is healthy
  - knallfrosch 2y ago
    If you read books 10 hours a day you will get myopia (shortsightedness)
    - Aachen 2y ago
      Citation needed. Per my understanding, this is false because, while the correlation is there, tests for causality fail to find support for this hypothesis. Newer studies seem to point to sunlight, perhaps it is due to different wavelengths or perhaps to the light's intensity that isn't sufficient indoors—where one often reads books, but not necessarily, and so the reading of stories doesn't seem to be myopia's cause Unless it turns out to be a constant focal point (such as on a book) after all, this is the same fallacy as the person I was responding to: sure, many unnatural things are bad for us because we are indeed not selected for ("made") to cope with it, but that's not the cause of why it's bad for us. At best, it can be a rule of thumb where no further information is available (like to answer "is this chemical only occurring on Ganymede edible?", you can use the rule to say "doubt it", but not to dismiss the idea of a study being useful by saying like the person above "who expects it to be healthy? It's such a bizarre thing to do")
masherm 2y ago
A standing desk has helped a lot for me. I also recently got a treadmill desk - would recommend if walking while taking calls is not distracting for you.

60 points by trott 2y ago

Don't wave the false flag of "WFH" for this one. When I am home I can easily walk to the coffee pot, wander around, pace, etc. I can also take 10 mins to walk the dog or put away laundry etc. This quick break is harder at work for me. In either environment, I am on Teams calls regardless.

deterministic 2y ago

Nope. Sitting down is a great way for you to rest and focus. The real problem is that when you regularly put your body into any specific position for a long time, you really need to stretch the opposite position to make sure your muscles stay flexible instead of locking up. I spend a lot of time sitting at work and home. So I make sure I always inverse the stiffing muscles by stretching the inverse position. Just stretching 5 min a day (and going for a 30+ minute walk) fixed the problems I previously had.

mark4 2y ago

On a tangential topic, is there another way of sitting, like sitting up? Why do English require qualifying with "down" so frequently?

noam_k 2y ago
When my daughter is standing, I tell her to sit down. When she slouches in her chair, I tell her to sit up. (I'm American, and curious if British have similar/differing expressions.)
- dnel 2y ago
  It's the same in the King's English
  - from-nibly 2y ago
    Oh yeah it's the kings English now. My whole life it's been the Queen's English. Weird.
    - Aachen 2y ago
      It's still queen's day to me in the Netherlands. Women in respected positions is cooler than men anyway
mkartic 2y ago
Both 'sit up' and 'stand down' mean very specific things. But yeah, unqualified 'sitting' & 'standing' definitely don't need that disambiguation.
bowsamic 2y ago
See separable verbs in German. There are a huge number of particles that completely change the meaning of verbs. For example sehen = to see, aussehen = to look (like)
- bowsamic 2y ago
  WHY WHY WHY did I get downvoted for this????
o11c 2y ago
Adverbial particles are certainly interesting, and widely used in English. Sometimes they are mandatory for a verb; othertimes they are redundant or change the meaning. Sometimes they take no direct object, but if they take it there are 3 places it can be (before, after, or size-dependent): For "sit" we have a wide variety: * plain "sit" - a variety of meanings, most intransitive. Notably means "relax" unlike the other forms. Note that it can be followed by a preposition with the same spelling as the particles below (e.g. "sit down the hall") * "sit down" - physical movement, also used for meetings. When transitive, the DO always goes before the particle. * "sit up" - physical movement (from "slouching" or "lying down"), always intransitive. A following "with" is sometimes analyzed as another particle but could just be a preposition. * "sit in" - protest, temporarily attend. Always(?) intransitive (if followed by an object it is the object of preposition "in", not particle "in"); often followed by an "on", "for", or "with" prepositional phrase (though those are sometimes analyzed as additional particles instead) * "sit off" - not putting full effort in sports. Always transitive, with the DO always after the particle. I'm not familiar with this personally. * "sit out" - not participate. When transitive, the DO goes before the particle if short (by default, no more than determiner + object), but after if long. So, usually "sit the game out" with "sit out the whole game", but it is possible to stretch the definition of "short" slightly. Plus some others that are sometimes analyzed as adverbial particles but can also be analyzed as normal adverbs or prepositions: * "sit around"/"sit about" - idle. Usually intransitive, so can also be analyzed as a normal adverb, but can also be transitive (usually followed by "the house") which would make it a preposition ... Related, I utterly reject the abomination that analyzes words as prepositions when they don't have an object. * "sit back" - relax or recline. Intransitive, so can also be analyzed as a normal adverb. * "sit [idly] by" - refrain from intervening. Intransitive, so can also be analyzed as a normal adverb. * "sit for" - babysit or model for. Transitive. I strongly dispute this analysis since the preposition interpretation provides all the meaning already ... especially given the similarity to "hold office for" which I haven't seen analyzed this way. * "sit on" - delay, restrain, take no action. Transitive and the DO follows, so "on" can also be analyzed as a preposition. * "sit over" - make room (intransitive), be left of and thus play cards after (transitive), burden (transitive) * "sit under" - be right of and thus play cards before (transitive), learn from a religious teacher (transitive) * "sit through" - remain through something unpleasant. Transitive and the DO follows, so maybe "through" is just a preposition. * "sit with" - harmonize, reflect. Transitive and the DO follows, so maybe "with" is just a preposition
jjtheblunt 2y ago
i think chair versus bar stool when i see that, with legs and bend at hip different positions. not clear if that's what was meant, though.

levocardia 2y ago

Of note: the issue is not so much sitting in particular, it's being sedentary. Standing for 5 hrs at a time is really not much better than sitting for that same duration, since humans are (understandably) well-adapted to stand upright with minimal metabolic cost. Sitting is bad because it displaces physical activity, not because there is something uniquely bad about being in a chair. Take a walk break.

wanderingstan 2y ago
> Sitting is bad because it displaces physical activity… This is at odds with the article, which states: > Since 2010, researchers have been keen to point out that sedentary behaviour is distinct from a lack of physical activity. You can get sufficient exercise per day, and still sit for too long.
- culi 2y ago
  I think this is confounding the two points. I don't think GP was talking about "exercise per day" but rather long periods of time of sedentarism. The quote from the article doesn't at all dispute the proposed point that "standing still for a long period of time can also be harmful"
cb321 2y ago
While the default is probably minimal metabolic cost, there are people I have seen who are more prone to shift their weight constantly while standing.. Almost a foot-motionless dance who are -- if doing it all day long -- probably burning serious calories that way. While I imagine you could adapt the same to a sitting posture, you're a lot less likely to be working against your whole body weight. This observation probably applies to (some of) those "standing desk" people, too.
loeg 2y ago
Some of the mechanisms they talk about are specific to sitting. But I don't know if they've made the connection between those specific mechanisms and outcomes, or if they're just theoretical.
2y ago

elric 2y ago

What about sitting without chairs? Like squatting, or seiza, or legs crossed? Those are sort of active(-ish) forms of sitting.

vishalontheline 2y ago
I recently swapped out my office chair for a coffee table. It allows me to sit without back support in a variety of positions - cross legged, feet on the ground, sometimes with my hands supporting me.. even hunched over if I'm being a bit lazy / sucked into whatever is happening on screen. The results have been almost instantaneous - back feels stronger, I'm not as stiff overall - general mobility and flexibility is better. Took a week or so to get used to. Initially I wanted to get up and go find a couch a lot. Now I can sit for hours, but like you mentioned - with the small movements - it's never totally sedentary.
- elric 2y ago
  I wonder if all those ergonomic chairs are a mistake. I mean they sure all comfortable, with all the support everywhere, but I'm beginning to think they might be worse for you than a plain old wooden chair.
  - vishalontheline 2y ago
    It's easier to stay awake on something that does not provide back support, that's for sure. Heavy lunch? No problem!

loeg 2y ago

The whole interesting part of the article to me is the (mostly unexamined) claim that sitting is still a problem in the exercising population. Everything afterwards is hypothetical discussion of mechanisms without looking at outcomes (at least for exercise vs no-exercise groups). > Since 2010, researchers have been keen to point out that sedentary behaviour is distinct from a lack of physical activity. You can get sufficient exercise per day, and still sit for too long. They could have delved into this a little more! The link is to a 2021 review (not 2010). Did they somehow RCT people into exercise vs no-exercise groups, or is this observational? Is it really just that our "active" guidelines are too low (30 minutes a day) and sort of assume a baseline active job during the other hours? (E.g., maybe guidelines should call for 2-3 hours of activity a day, some of which can be covered by non-sedentary jobs.) Anyway, just trying to figure out what to take away from this as an office worker who gets 1.5-2 hours of exercise a day.

keybored 2y ago
That Sitting Too Much Is Bad Even If You Exercise has been discussed for maybe more than ten years now. There’s nothing particularly “interesting” about not substantiating it in a BBC article. And how would exercise compensate for sitting too much? That doesn’t make sense on the face of it. Exercise primarily builds strength and cardiovascular conditioning. It doesn’t (on the face of it) compensate for sitting at least eight hours a weekday if you’re an office worker[1] in addition to sedentary hobbies. Again from my naive perspective: sitting shortens the hip flexor which in turn can lead to anterior pelvic tilt which in turn can compress the lower back/spine both while sitting and while walking around (active). That’s just one example of a biomechanical conditioning that doesn’t just get fixed by exercise, or at least not without directed exercise (try to notice sometime how many people have an S-arched back as opposed to a more neutral (slight sway) lower back). [1] Shout out to managers who get the opportunity to “walk and talk”.

scrapcode 2y ago

I went from a pretty physically active job in facilities management to an IT role working from home about 3 years ago and have had a slew of physical issues that I think are related to sitting down 10+ hours a day such as sciatica. I real a book called "Deskbound: Standing Up to a Sitting World" by Dr. Kelly Starrett and it's pretty damning. Similar to the old comparison that smoking a cigarette takes ~7 minutes off of your life, they claim that every hour you sit down takes ~11 minutes off of your life. Regardless of everything I have read about sitting down being terrible for you, I just can't seem to get into a routine of standing up. Once I sit down for an engagement / lunch / etc., I just simply don't make it back up that day. I have become terribly lazy, I guess.

knallfrosch 2y ago
Have you considered a standing desk (one where you can adjust the height)? I don't have one and don't use the one I have in the office, but still.
- scrapcode 2y ago
  I do have an adjustable standing desk. I have tried days where the goal was to stand all day, but it just doesn't work out that way. Once I sit down and get in the "zone," the next thing I know the day is over.
- deterministic 2y ago
  Standing up all day is really bad for you. Much worse than sitting.
- pjerem 2y ago
  I did. It remains in seated position. Not because I don’t want to use it but rather that being standing without moving is rapidly uncomfortable and also bad for health. Yes you can alternate. But that’s just annoying. The hard truth is that we are made to move and to move on purpose but that’s not what the society wants us to do. Standing desks and all are just hacks, not the panacea.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jFriedensreich 2y ago

apple watch and a walking pad with standing desk really changed my life. i tried all three individually but only since i have all three combined do i really naturally embed walking in my work life. the watch reminds every hour in which i did not get up, tracks progress and gives feeling of reward and accomplishments, the walking pad allows standing without having to change legs and hurting feet and walking on a standing desk allows to continue entertainment or most work tasks. I now dont spend any day without 2h / 8km walking. There is just something that feels different in my energy and sense of happiness when moving throughout a day.

swatcoder 2y ago

It shouldn't surprise anyone that countless hours-per-day held in a static posture is right there with repetitive motion in terms of health consequences. Both are a kind of bizarre thing to do, and it's hard to imagine that human evolution had much opportunity to optimize for any particular sustained posture or deeply repetitive motion when much broader variety seems to be the norm throughout most of culture and history. You wouldn't expect an hour of doing something else, however vigorous or dynamic, to really overcome the consequences of such a contrived routine. If you want care about this stuff (it's fair not to; you'll still live as long as your peers if you don't), you do just need to figure out how to make frequent, non-repetitive movement part of your day.

Aachen 2y ago
That we didn't evolve to read doesn't mean I don't enjoy a book or it can't be healthy for me to relax in that escape. This is not a useful predictor for whether or not something is healthy
- knallfrosch 2y ago
  If you read books 10 hours a day you will get myopia (shortsightedness)
  - Aachen 2y ago
    Citation needed. Per my understanding, this is false because, while the correlation is there, tests for causality fail to find support for this hypothesis. Newer studies seem to point to sunlight, perhaps it is due to different wavelengths or perhaps to the light's intensity that isn't sufficient indoors—where one often reads books, but not necessarily, and so the reading of stories doesn't seem to be myopia's cause Unless it turns out to be a constant focal point (such as on a book) after all, this is the same fallacy as the person I was responding to: sure, many unnatural things are bad for us because we are indeed not selected for ("made") to cope with it, but that's not the cause of why it's bad for us. At best, it can be a rule of thumb where no further information is available (like to answer "is this chemical only occurring on Ganymede edible?", you can use the rule to say "doubt it", but not to dismiss the idea of a study being useful by saying like the person above "who expects it to be healthy? It's such a bizarre thing to do")

masherm 2y ago

A standing desk has helped a lot for me. I also recently got a treadmill desk - would recommend if walking while taking calls is not distracting for you.