Each hour you spend in front of a screen is associated with 11% increase in risk of

[blndcnfrmststpdty]

DEATH.


Regardless of exercise, sex, weight, etc.


Here's a great blog post all about sedentary living:

"Can sitting too much kill you? / Scientific American"
By Travis Saunders | January 6, 2011
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/01/06/can-sitting-too-much-kill-you/

And a clip:
"But what is fascinating is that the relationship between sitting time and mortality was independent of physical activity levels. In fact, individuals who sat the most were roughly 50% more likely to die during the follow-up period than individuals who sat the least, even after controlling for age, smoking, and physical activity levels. Further analyses suggested that the relationship between sitting time and mortality was also independent of body weight. This suggests that all things being equal (body weight, physical activity levels, smoking, alcohol intake, age, and sex) the person who sits more is at a higher risk of death than the person who sits less."


This, coupled with Nicholas Carr's 'The Shallows', has me questioning, very sincerely, my relationship with the personal computer.




Any thoughts on this?
You guys have read this stuff, right?

 

[Darksidesam]

it kinda makes sense i guess.

but many other factors are involved with something like this.
But most old people i know who have exceeded 80 still try and keep busy and stuff and not vegitate in front of a screen be it pc or tv

 

[J.Wallace]

Even though I spend most of my time in Pennsylvania in front of my TV, or Computer...I'm not gonna change a thing.

My philosophy is still one of a young and immature kid - I'm gonna die one day any way...might as well do what feels good, and feel good about what I do.

 

[euphoria]

Ok, so long periods of sitting or inactivity can negatively impact your health, which in turn can shorten lifespan. I understand this point. But I'm not sure that I believe associating this with the minutes spent in front of a screen is a fair correlation. True, if you sit in front of a computer all day and don't ever move, that is not healthy for you. But think about people's health before there were screens. Before the internet was invented, medical professionals could not share information as easily and research for disease cures and treatments as well as general healthy living information was not widely spread throughout the world. The advancement of medical technology with the invention of screen-based products has undoubtedly contributed to an overall increased lifespan and quality of life of humans. Without this, we would not be able to share the knowledge and research of modern medicine.

That being said, most people nowadays make a living by working on screen-based technology all day. I'm in no way advocating that staring at a screen is GOOD for your eyes, or that sitting for long periods of time is GOOD for your body, but I don't necessarily think there is any way to prove that this contributes to a shorter lifespan. Before there were screens and jobs that involved working with them on a daily basis, workers were subjected to extremely harsh working conditions which they suffered numerous health problems as a result. I would say that modern technology causes different health problems to humans, not necessarily any MORE than there has been in the past.

 

[blndcnfrmststpdty]

Okay. Do what you want.
Nature won't be fooled by lengthy verbal gymnastics, though.


If it's a risk you're willing to take...I can't stop you.

"Prolonged Sitting Linked to Breast and Colon Cancers"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...sitting-linked

I tend to believe scientists with PhDs, risking their life's work and reputation, over anonymous internet discussion anyway. lol.
By the way, Carr never says that 'technology' is 'bad', or any such simplistic nonsense. Just, you know, for the record.

The rest I'll leave for someone with more time on their hands...

Ciao!

 

[footscrazy]

^ I agree (with euphoria) that I'm not sure how direct I think the correlation is.

I have to sit in the front of the computer for work, but one think I have noticed about myself is that I never sit still. I am constantly fidgeting or moving my body to music even when sitting down; I find it uncomfortable to sit without moving any part of myself. I have seen research that suggests simply being a fidgeter can mean you burn a great deal more calories a day. I've always been naturally slim and I wouldn't be surprised if this had something to do with it.

 

[blndcnfrmststpdty]

Well, you probably know more than the scientists, so...it's easy to see how you missed the part of my first post saying 'what is fascinating is that the relationship between sitting time and mortality was independent of physical activity levels.'

 

[footscrazy]

^ Haha, apparently you haven't read the article as well as you thought

Before we go any further, it’s important that we define the term "sedentary behavior". Sedentary behavior is typically defined as any behavior with an exceedingly low energy expenditure (defined as <1.5 metabolic equivalents). In general, this means that almost any time you are sitting (e.g. working on a computer, watching TV, driving) or lying down, you are engaging in sedentary behavior.

So while it makes intuitive sense that being sedentary reduces energy expenditure, it is likely through the reduction of very light intensity physical activity (e.g. standing, walking at a slow pace), rather than by reducing the volume of what we typically think of as exercise. This may also help explain why the relationship between sedentary behavior and health risk are often independent of moderate or vigorous physical activity.

Do you not see what that is saying? In fact it proves exactly what I said in my last post. The are defining 'sedentary' as sitting still, and the importance of that is it reduces 'very light intensity physical activity (e.g. standing, walking at a slow pace), rather than by reducing the volume of what we typically think of as exercise.'. What I described, fidgeting, dancing in my chair, is exactly what theyre talking about when they mention 'very light intensity physical activity'.

MMMkay?

 

[euphoria]

Okay. Do what you want.
Nature won't be fooled by lengthy verbal gymnastics, though.


If it's a risk you're willing to take...I can't stop you.


I tend to believe scientists with PhDs, risking their life's work and reputation, over anonymous internet discussion anyway. lol.
By the way, Carr never says that 'technology' is 'bad', or any such simplistic nonsense. Just, you know, for the record.

The rest I'll leave for someone with more time on their hands...

Ciao!

If you don't care about having a respectful discussion about the article, and you don't hold any value to anonymous internet discussion, then why did you create a thread about this? Also, why are you spending time in front of a screen on bluelight then if you are so adamant about the fact you're "not willing to take the risk"?

 

[blndcnfrmststpdty]

To 'euphoria':

1) Saying I place more value in science and professional opinion...and saying I don't hold any{/iI} value in anonymous internet discussion are two different things entirely..
Unfortunately though, internet discussions tend to tack towards the same shallow, bickering waters this one has veered into.

2) Saying, "Okay. Do what you want, I can't stop you anyways"... sounds peaceful enough to me, and that's how I intended it.

3) Not willing to risk my life with prolonged exposure to unhealthy sedentary living...doesn't preclude me from occasional posts.
Life is not all or none, black or white, as I'm sure you know.

It's rather amazing to see the position you're taking, as a mod of a HEALTHY LIVING forum.lol.
And rather disappointing that you chose this thread to vent about world history and whether all of technology is 'good' or 'bad'.
Neither of which has anything to do with the studies I was linking to in my OP.

Oh well, life goes on.



To 'footscrazy':

Weeeelll, buddy, try as you might your post doesn't prove your original point, at all. Good try though.
Read the Scientific American link with an open mind and a sharp eye and you'll see your error. Maybe.


If, after reading, you still think 'chair dancing' all day is going to save your ass (literally) from cancer...
And your heart and brain from computer rot...

All I can say is, again,----> Cool! It's your body! Do as thou wilt! I sincerely wish you the best.
Just know that nature will not be fooled by lengthy verbal gymnastics. One way or the other.
For either of us.




My only point of posting these links was to share scientific info. And try to help motivate people to be healthy. That's all.
The Scientific American blog post, and Nic Carr's 'The Shallows', are much more informative than this thread is turning out to be.
(Surprise? ) and I refer people back to those sources for detailed, professional, scientific opinions and theories of this matter.

C'est la vie!

Smile! Life! is! short!

I hold absolutely NO hard feelings towards anyone here!
Peace. Be healthy! lol. That includes staying out of drama online, I assume.

"PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAACCCEEEEE BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA~!!!!!!!"

 

[footscrazy]

Weeeelll, buddy, try as you might your post doesn't prove your original point, at all. Good try though.

Actually, I think you've missed my point entirely

 

[blndcnfrmststpdty]

Unfortunately, just saying I missed your point adds nothing constructive to this thread.

The Men Who Stare at Screens :

...What was unexpected was that many of the men who sat long hours and developed heart problems also exercised. Quite a few of them said they did so regularly and led active lifestyles. The men worked out, then sat in cars and in front of televisions for hours, and their risk of heart disease soared, despite the exercise. Their workouts did not counteract the ill effects of sitting.

Most of us have heard that sitting is unhealthy. But many of us also have discounted the warnings, since we spend our lunch hours conscientiously visiting the gym. We consider ourselves sufficiently active. But then we drive back to the office, settle at our desks and sit for the rest of the day. We are, in a phrase adopted by physiologists, ‘‘active couch potatoes.’’

(...)

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/phys-ed-the-men-who-stare-at-screens/ "

What is sedentary behavior?

...Before we go any further, it’s important that we define the term "sedentary behavior". Sedentary behavior is typically defined as any behavior with an exceedingly low energy expenditure (defined as <1.5 metabolic equivalents). In general, this means that almost any time you are sitting (e.g. working on a computer, watching TV, driving) or lying down, you are engaging in sedentary behavior. There are a few notable exceptions when you can be sitting or lying down but still expend high energy expenditure (e.g. riding a stationary bike), but in general if you are sitting down, you are being sedentary.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/01/06/can-sitting-too-much-kill-you/

Physical inactivity a leading cause of disease and disability, warns WHO

...Sedentary lifestyles increase all causes of mortality, double the risk of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and obesity, and increase the risks of colon cancer, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, lipid disorders, depression and anxiety. According to WHO, 60 to 85% of people in the world—from both developed and developing countries—lead sedentary lifestyles, making it one of the more serious yet insufficiently addressed public health problems of our time. It is estimated that nearly two-thirds of children are also insufficiently active, with serious implications for their future health.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/release23/en/index.html

 

[blndcnfrmststpdty]

Peace everyone, I'm out.