3 ms·
> So why is sitting so damaging? One thing it does is change the way our bodies deal with sugar... but how efficiently your body does that is affected by how ph
by driverdan 13y ago
> So why is sitting so damaging? One thing it does is change the way our bodies deal with sugar... but how efficiently your body does that is affected by how physically active you are
Terrible reporting here. This has nothing to do with sitting, it has to do with inactivity. You can have an active lifestyle and still sit all day. Later it states
> blood glucose levels fell back to normal levels after a meal far more quickly on the days when the volunteers stood than when they sat.
So what? If you don't have a medical condition related to elevated blood glucose having meal related glucose levels take longer to return to baseline shouldn't cause problems. I'm not aware of any research stating otherwise. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
There are problems due to sitting though, such as
> a sharp reduction in the activity of an enzyme called lipoprotein lipase
and as they mentioned standing burns far more calories (the article said 50/h) which is a good thing.
I'm all for standing but it'd be nice for reporters to get their facts straight.
- hackinthebochs 13y agoThis is wrong actually. Sitting is an independent risk factor for death (i.e. independent of physical activity level): http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-07-09/sitting-less-could-extend-life/56117870/1 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-07-09/... The reasoning is that standing activates enzymes and gene expression triggered by activity in your slow-twitch high-fatigue-resistant muscles which run on fatty acids, which has all sorts of benefits for metabolism, body composition, and overall health.
- lambda 13y agoNote that if you take a look at the study mentioned, http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000828.full http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000828.full you find: Our analysis assumes that there is a causal relationship between sedentary behaviour and mortality. So, it doesn't actually demonstrate it; it finds a correlation, and makes the assumption that there is causation. However, previous studies have shown that heavier people are more likely to choose sedentary jobs: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1008580/pdf/brjindmed00119-0013.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1008580/pdf/brji... . So in fact, the causation may go in the other direction; people who are heavier, or less healthy in other ways, may be more likely to choose sedentary jobs or sedentary lifestyles. It would be interesting to see if anyone has actually been able to demonstrate a causal effect based on changes in behavior. Does changing from a sitting desk to a standing desk actually help? I don't think that has been conclusively demonstrated.
- hackinthebochs 13y agoI've seen quite a few more studies over the last year or so that come to the same conclusion. A google search returns many.
- driverdan 13y ago> The reasoning is that standing activates enzymes and gene expression That's my point. That there are reasons why standing is better than sitting but the article got them mostly wrong.
- hackinthebochs 13y agoYeah youre right, I skipped the last part of your post when it sounded like you disagreed that sitting was problematic in itself.