5 ms·
3600 people is a pretty good sample size. The limitation here is that it's observational rather than a controlled intervention. So, you could say, perhaps those
by carbocation 11y ago
3600 people is a pretty good sample size. The limitation here is that it's observational rather than a controlled intervention. So, you could say, perhaps those who were sicker moved around less. Rather than movement leading to improved health, improved health could lead to movement.
That said, if it's the best evidence we have, it might be reasonable to suggest that people spend a bit more time moving around until we get more evidence. The intervention is very unlikely to be harmful, costs virtually nothing, is easy to do, and could be helpful.
- melling 11y ago...or it might do absolutely nothing for you. We might find out 10 years from now that standin up every 10 minutes and doing 20 squats works, for example. People get a little tired of meaningless study after study articles. "Well, it couldn't hurt" gets old too.
- ludamad 11y agoInstead, I take these studies with a pinch of salt and also judge how I feel sitting all day (fairly bad) vs taking breaks to jog on spot every so often (fairly good). EDIT: But I do think the title is overly optimistic, personally
- melling 11y agoYes, sitting all day is bad. That study was done decades ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/research/08morris.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/research/08morris.h... Maybe once a few more people become tired of these "results", we can devise better studies or use better science to measure our "health".