home
RSS
July 22nd, 2010
04:38 PM ET

Sitting, even after workout, can cut lifespan


A new study debunks the theory that an hour of exercise a day is all you need to live a long life. Turns out, people who spend more time sitting during their leisure time have an increased risk of death, regardless of daily exercise.

American Cancer Society researchers tracked the activity levels and death rates in more than 123,000 healthy men and women for 13 years. They found women who spend over six hours a day sitting during leisure time (watching TV, playing games, surfing the web, reading) were 40 percent more likely to die sooner than women who spend less than three hours sitting. Men who spend more time sitting have a 20 percent increased risk of death. Essentially, those who sit less, live a longer life than those who don't.

Several factors come into play when figuring out “why” sitting may take years off your life.

The first may seem like common sense. The more time you spend sitting, the more likely you are to passively eat snacks or consume high calories drinks resulting in unhealthy weight gain. But this isn’t always the case. Sedentary obese and normal weight Americans had similar increased risk of death in the study.

Prolonged time sitting suppresses your immune system, which may increase the risk of cancer and other diseases. And your blood isn’t circulating as it should when you’re sedentary for long periods of time. When blood doesn’t flow thru your veins up to your heart, it could lead to dangerous blood clot. It also has metabolic consequences – increasing your resting blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Researchers say the metabolic effect may explain why the association was strongest for cardiovascular disease mortality in the study.

The study, published in the American Journal of Epidemology suggests, “public health guidelines should be refined to include reducing time spent sitting in addition to promoting physical activity.”

So as you keep your brain stimulated with your smart phones, video games and gadgets, wireless apps and paperless books – walk around or stand up while playing your favorite game. You may add years to your life.


soundoff (341 Responses)
  1. justdc

    V.Interesting!

    July 22, 2010 at 16:44 | Report abuse | Reply
    • mark

      I'm an IT guy – aging. I've been working with a raised work surface at my job for almost 2 years. I can't stand to sit anymore (pun not intended) as it causes much pain by the end of the day. I had the maintenance crew come in and raise one of my two platforms to a level where I can stand with my notebook pc and work. I keep a foot rest under that platform and simply switch feet back and forth – much like a foot rail in a bar. It takes some getting used to but after a couple of weeks you'll find standing is preferred. I can always move my notebook over to the other surface if I get tired of standing and sit for a little while. A perfect, apparently very healthy, work environment.

      July 23, 2010 at 06:54 | Report abuse |
    • LadyLost

      Jeez. Just the sort of thing a person who is wheelchair-bound wants to hear. How do you propose, good Dr; that a woman who is unable to stand, let alone walk, spend *any* time on her feet? Seems like all I'm reading these days is concerning good health is eat right and walk, walk, walk! But when it comes to those of us strapped into a wheelchair for the next 20-30 yrs of our life, *no one* has any answers or recommendations for us...

      July 23, 2010 at 09:12 | Report abuse |
    • Mike Speakman

      These studies are all basically useless. Live your life the way that gives you the most pleasure and you will have lived a good life no matter how long it is.

      July 23, 2010 at 11:31 | Report abuse |
    • ruffs

      I dont think standing is going to be any better for you. I believe they assume since your not sitting your actually being active...yeeeesh....

      July 23, 2010 at 12:02 | Report abuse |
    • Ben Brucato

      Where's the citation? All we have is a journal name (with no volume and issue number), the author's affiliation (with no author name), and no title of the article. I'm on EBSCO now searching through the volumes. A professional article covering the academic press should absolutely provide information to easily track down the original source. This is SLOPPY!

      July 24, 2010 at 14:50 | Report abuse |
    • bob

      I guess i should sell all my chairs and sofas. What about lying down? Does sleep count as sedentary? maybe i should stock up on red bull and sell my bed too. What about people in wheel chairs. should i sell my tv? I NEED ANSWERS

      July 31, 2010 at 02:34 | Report abuse |
  2. flapeteacher

    Not mentioned here is the massive amount of seat time children have in our schools.

    July 22, 2010 at 17:33 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Phil

      Yeah, I wonder why they didn't mention that! 🙂

      July 22, 2010 at 18:08 | Report abuse |
    • Kim

      @ Mikey:

      Yeah, but kids have much longer class times than they did 20-30 years ago, and not many walk/ride their bikes to school anymore. Busing kids all over a city also counts as "seat time". Plus, phys ed isn't as rigorous as it used to be. Combine that with being so drained when they get home from school, and who wouldn't want to sit around and play Xbox360?

      July 22, 2010 at 20:20 | Report abuse |
    • BB

      Absolutely. Do not enjoy the forced sedentary position- speaks to the ethos of a bygone era. Much of my postgrad learning has occurred in an active setting- outside, or in a standing position. The nature of learning is shifting, it will be interesting, as in so many other things happening today, to see how long it takes the traditional model to catch up.

      July 23, 2010 at 01:33 | Report abuse |
    • Seymour Johnson

      Oh, god, won't someone think of the children?!

      July 23, 2010 at 15:34 | Report abuse |
  3. Joe

    So, ummm, doesn't "40 percent more likely to die sooner" equal 60 percent more likely to live longer?

    July 22, 2010 at 17:59 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Fingal

      no.. 60% live longer or live the same.

      July 22, 2010 at 18:12 | Report abuse |
    • Stephano Andreas

      No, that's not what it means.

      July 22, 2010 at 20:34 | Report abuse |
    • tew

      That's sure how I read it. Either the article is accidentally poorly worded or the study isn't as conclusive as were led to believe, leaving the author with the task of misleading us with true statements.

      July 22, 2010 at 21:33 | Report abuse |
    • James

      It means that if you pick some arbitrary age, whatever the odds are that a non-sitter would die before, the odd for the sitter are that plus 40% more likely.

      July 22, 2010 at 21:59 | Report abuse |
    • sevres Blue

      NO! DUH! It's 40% ADDITIONAL risk!

      July 22, 2010 at 22:18 | Report abuse |
    • msg

      "40 percent more likely to die sooner" than a certain cohort of the population (6 hrs women are 40% more likely to die by that age than ❤ hrs women, but you have to specify an age. It isn't going to be 40 percent more likely by ANY age–age 15, 50, 65, 110. Of course, article doesn't say which age it is, so we're left with a headline that doesn't make any sense.

      July 22, 2010 at 22:22 | Report abuse |
    • msg

      My message got cut off. Should read that saying "40 percent more likely to die sooner" than a certain cohort of the population doesn't make sense. You can pick an age, say, 65, and say that certain women are 40% more likely to die by that age than others, but you have to pick an age, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

      July 22, 2010 at 22:24 | Report abuse |
    • jack

      no, it means 60% less likely to live longer.

      July 23, 2010 at 01:23 | Report abuse |
    • alev

      "60 percent less likely to live longer" doesn't make any more sense mathematically than "40 percent more likely to die sooner." You can be 60 percent less likely to reach a certain age–which has to be specified–but not just 60 percent less likely to live longer than another group. "Less likely to live longer" and "more likely to die sooner" are just not actual mathematical/statistical concepts.

      July 23, 2010 at 08:02 | Report abuse |
    • Tyler

      Perhaps the author, Danielle Dellorto can help us out here by explaining to us just what she means by "40 percent more likely to die sooner". It is rather cryptic.

      July 23, 2010 at 08:21 | Report abuse |
    • Alan

      Statistics literacy to the rescue for all the hacky sack majors out there! 40% more likely to die means this: If you pick two dead people at random, one a sitter, the other a stander, there is a 58.3% chance that the longer lived of the two was the stander. Conversely, there is a 41.7% chance that the longer lived of the two was the sitter (58.3/41.7 ~= 1.4). Hope that helped.

      July 23, 2010 at 09:13 | Report abuse |
    • Jessica

      But the stats mean nothing unless we know how much of a difference that life expectancy is. meaning, am I dying 3 years earlier? 10? 20? if its just 3...eh, im not that worried. if it's 20...i'm worried.

      July 23, 2010 at 12:10 | Report abuse |
  4. Vince

    Can someone at CNN please check for errors in grammar before publishing? "you're" ??? If not, hire me to do the job... jesus... Three days and each day I found a number of errors.

    July 22, 2010 at 18:05 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Grammer Teacher

      I agree, CNN consistently makes grammar and spelling mistakes as if its a 2 year old writing this stuff. Instead of having someone at CNN reading and filtering the comments, they should rather spend the time to have them proofread the damn articles!

      July 22, 2010 at 20:30 | Report abuse |
    • NG

      I believe the many uses of "your" and the one use of "you're" in this article are grammatically correct.

      July 22, 2010 at 20:32 | Report abuse |
    • Stephano Andreas

      The "you're" is used correctly in the article above. There are no your/you're substitutions above.

      July 22, 2010 at 20:40 | Report abuse |
    • Betty

      Sorry, what you're are you talking about? "isn't circulating as it should when you're [you are] sedentary for long periods of time is correct.
      And Grammer Teacher's comments have several mistakes: Cnn as if its [instead of it's as in it is] a 2-year-old not [2 year old]. Instead of having someone at Cnn, it [not they] should spend time [delete rather].

      Be very careful when you criticize.

      July 22, 2010 at 20:49 | Report abuse |
    • Darth Vader

      The force is not strong in you, Vince.

      July 22, 2010 at 21:04 | Report abuse |
    • James

      Also, isn't the spelling in "Grammer Teacher" incorrect? I believe it should be "Grammar." I really hope you're not a real teacher pal.

      July 22, 2010 at 21:27 | Report abuse |
    • Sean

      How exactly is "you're" used incorrectly in this article? I think you may need to brush up on your English before offering your services as a proof reader.

      July 22, 2010 at 21:35 | Report abuse |
    • Lynn

      Haven't they heard about spell check?

      July 22, 2010 at 21:35 | Report abuse |
    • jaque

      Seriously, since when did "thru" become acceptable spelling in a piece on the front page of the biggest news website in the world? This is hack journalism, at best. The credibility of this article, and indeed the entire website, is hereby compromised. With errors like these, I'd sooner believe a paper arguing the merits of bloodletting. I'm changing my home page back to the New York Times.

      July 22, 2010 at 21:35 | Report abuse |
    • Mr. Deltoid

      "Thru" is a perfectly acceptable (albeit informal) variant of "through" according to http://www.dictionary.com, Merriam Webster online dictionary, and other modernized grammar sources (I looked them up because I, too was skeptical at first). And since this is a BLOG, it is very appropriate. Before slamming the article, do some research for yourself. The writer obviously did. And Jaque, if you think anyone at CNN cares that you're changing your home page to newyorktimes.com then you have much bigger issues to deal with than the word "thru." I'm sure NYT will be happy to have their 10th reader this year, though.

      July 22, 2010 at 22:13 | Report abuse |
    • Clearer upper

      I think all vince meant was that "you're" should not be used in the first place. It should be "you are" because "you're " is to familiar and makes cnn seem unprofessional. Correct me if i am wrong. Bash all you want. I am just trying to clear things up the best i can. I own a car and one day hope to own a helicopter. vrooooom. peace suckas

      July 23, 2010 at 02:53 | Report abuse |
    • Gene Orm

      Jesus is spelled with a capital J.

      July 23, 2010 at 07:28 | Report abuse |
    • Another teacher

      Epidemology is spelled wrong. Epidemiology is correct.

      July 23, 2010 at 07:42 | Report abuse |
    • Purist

      What is wrong with you're? I didn't think ' thru' was correct,
      shouldn't it be ' through'?

      July 23, 2010 at 08:08 | Report abuse |
    • Craig

      @Mr. Deltoid – The NY Times is third in total circulation in the US. If you bother to read it, you'll note the quality of writing and investigative journalism is far better than most other news sources. I, for one, have always appreciated the fact that the editors publish a "corrections" section each day; in which they note any reporting errors from previous editions. Every news source makes mistakes, the NYTimes is one of the few that will so openly admit to and correct those mistakes. If I want to know how Lindsay Lohan is doing in jail...I'll check CNN.com. If I want real news, with some measure of substance and journalistic integrity; I go to the NY Times. No offense to CNN; they just have a different target market.

      July 23, 2010 at 10:30 | Report abuse |
    • Jen

      "Mr. Deltoid"– Just because 'thru' is a real word that exists in the dictionary doesn't mean that it should be used in all settings. When McDonald's has a 'drive-thru' I am not particularly bothered by use of the more informal version. In a professional news article, it is unacceptable to use "thru" when the more appropriate "through" is available. In formal writing, you are not supposed to use abbreviations (unless, for example, a company's name is an abbreviation. Even then you are usually supposed to write out the full name at least once) and I believe this counts as an abbreviation. Even if you disagree, your argument of "OH WELL IT'S IN THE DICTIONARY!!!1!11" Doesn't make any sense. There are quite a number of words–(slang words, profane words, etc.) that are listed in the dictionary but should not be found in professional writing, such as news articles, barring a certain context that demands them.

      Also, seeing "thru" as a sloppy typo when there have been a fair number of other typos/grammatical errors above it is a perfectly reasonable response. Get off your high horse and stop being a jerk.

      July 23, 2010 at 11:10 | Report abuse |
    • Larvadog

      I refudiate you!

      July 23, 2010 at 11:58 | Report abuse |
    • jeff

      you're is correct in this context. You are.....you're

      And your blood isn’t circulating as it should when you’re sedentary for long periods of time

      July 23, 2010 at 12:52 | Report abuse |
    • david42

      all usages of "your" and "you're" are correct grammar.

      July 23, 2010 at 14:25 | Report abuse |
    • Monique Muro

      That's what I said! And "thru"??? Come on!

      July 23, 2010 at 15:17 | Report abuse |
    • AA

      American Journal of Epidemology
      Isn't it spelled Epidemiology?

      July 23, 2010 at 19:34 | Report abuse |
    • Daniel

      IT is unlikely that any americans are doing any of the article editing, it's offshored and possibly even posted remotely. Most of print media on the web or otherwise works like that...in case you are wondering why -any major newpaper- has peculiar editing quality anymore.
      As for the article, uh, sure right and on some nights the moon appears brighter, that about as useful.

      July 24, 2010 at 09:35 | Report abuse |
    • TheJcor

      Much thanks to all of you grammar specialists out there. The integrity and message was COMPLETELY and TOTALLY lost betwixt the spelling and grammer errors. I couldn't understand it one bit!!

      Seriously folks, we don't live in a perfect editorial world, and occasional mispellings and missed apostrophes fall through the cracks now and again. I dont really think it's necessary to leave a plethora of comments pointing out such things debasing the author over this. Maybe you all should try to apply for a CNN editor job, and solve the problem, hmm?

      July 26, 2010 at 12:09 | Report abuse |
  5. Phil

    Glad I just caught this, I was wandering around trying to figure out my 'Sudoku of the Day.' Ha ha ha ha!

    July 22, 2010 at 18:07 | Report abuse | Reply
  6. Harry

    I find this very interesting but after talking to my 86 year great grandmother, she knows this even before the studies suggested it. She is living proof, that if you stay busy, you stay alive.

    July 22, 2010 at 18:07 | Report abuse | Reply
  7. Amanda

    is it bad that i was in my 8th hour of sitting and eating popcorn while i was reading this?

    July 22, 2010 at 18:11 | Report abuse | Reply
    • DanW

      LOL....and what of those who have to sit for a living? Maybe programmers have to find a way to jog while working?

      July 22, 2010 at 21:27 | Report abuse |
    • Mai

      Heck no it doesn't matter. I assume you were sitting cross-legged those 8 hours of sitting and eating your popcorn mindfully with a clear and peaceful Zen mind!

      July 23, 2010 at 11:15 | Report abuse |
    • Daniel

      🙂 only if the popcorn is heavily buttered.
      Hay I'm paid to sit and operate... even at the moment.

      July 24, 2010 at 09:43 | Report abuse |
  8. chris

    Only in 2010 would this be considered some kind of health information breakthrough.
    There didn't need to be a single dime spent for a study like this. If you lead a sedentary lifestyle, you're going to be unhealthy.
    Period. And if you're unhealthy, you will die much sooner than someone who is, barring accidental deaths.

    But look at our nation currently: Obesity is rampant, people are more sedentary than they've ever been. We make our livings by sitting on our butts all day. We don't exercise and eat fast food most of the time since mom isn't home to cook for anyone anymore.
    We've brought a world of pain upon ourselves as Americans and it gets worse with ever passing year. Fast food, exposure to unnatural chemicals and food loaded with pesticides. Nobody gets enough sleep, everyone is on an antidepressant, work means sitting around for 8 hours and everyone is too tired to go to the gym afterward for some reason.
    If this doesn't change, we won't be around much longer to fix this nation. It doesn't matter how good your health care is or how much access you have to it if you're insistent upon killing yourself slowly. The doctors can only do so much to keep us going. The rest is up to us.

    July 22, 2010 at 18:14 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Cat

      Please, skinny people at my work sit around on their rears too. The point is, skinny fat or not in shape, is the same as obese sitting around.

      July 22, 2010 at 22:39 | Report abuse |
    • Sam

      Chris, thank you for your completely nonsensical, emotional rant that has absolutely no supporting evidence nor basis in reality. I hope you fade quickly from this earth. Thanks!

      July 23, 2010 at 10:26 | Report abuse |
    • Mai

      Most of what you say is correct, though some parents who stay at home serve fast food to their kids, so it's not an issue of "mothers," or whether or not they work. Yes, many people use antidepressants, antianxiolytics (not sure my spelling there and I"m fighting my OCD urge to look it up) and alcohol or other drugs to numb things, but the rest of what you say is right on. Your IQ points and consciousness are up there. As for one who responded negatively to you, there is recent research that people who don't know don't have the intelligence to know they don't know. In law school, when I thought an exam was tough and I figured I flunked, the "C" students thought it was easy, and then I would get "top paper." Yes, we are in trouble.

      July 23, 2010 at 11:28 | Report abuse |
  9. Pam

    Glad I invested in my walkstation at work! I walk 8-10 hours a day now while on my computer instead of sitting on my butt. My doctor told me my back problems were from sitting at a desk for 30 years. Glad to have added benefits to my walking....as well as no back pain!

    July 22, 2010 at 18:23 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Burbank

      Eventually you will develop foot and leg problems. That is too much walking. Everything in balance.

      July 22, 2010 at 19:28 | Report abuse |
    • timc

      wrong, what are you the walking police? animals and humans alike used to walk for the entire day which is 16 hours often back when they had to search for food to stay alive.. do some research and you will find there is not a limit to how much you can walk.. maybe strenuous exercise.. but walking is not strenuous and the body is designed for it, for long periods.

      July 22, 2010 at 21:12 | Report abuse |
    • Curt

      What is a walk station?

      July 23, 2010 at 12:31 | Report abuse |
    • kdc

      timc, the average life span of humans was much less back then.

      Yes, since we have become more lazy and fat, our life spans have gone up quite a bit.

      I also this this article is insensitive to wheelchair bound people – they are basically saying that those fit men playing basketball in thier wheelchairs are going to die young because even though they're working out they're sitting, how stupid!

      July 23, 2010 at 14:14 | Report abuse |
  10. ICommonSense

    So people who sit around all day rather than leading healthy, active lives don't live as long??? This is big time news, alert the internets.

    July 22, 2010 at 18:24 | Report abuse | Reply
    • z3pp3h

      THE INTERNETS HAS BEEN ALERTED! YOUR CONTRIBUTION IS VALUED!

      July 23, 2010 at 11:48 | Report abuse |
  11. Cathy

    So what kind of life expectancy do you think a person who's sat in a wheelchair for 23 years has. I wonder.

    July 22, 2010 at 18:24 | Report abuse | Reply
    • CSh

      Well, if it's not motorized, I imagine that they get quite a bit of exersize. You have to really work to move those wheelchairs.

      July 22, 2010 at 20:15 | Report abuse |
  12. Cathy

    Oh, that's right they only studied "healthy" people.

    July 22, 2010 at 18:25 | Report abuse | Reply
    • AGuest9

      @Cathy, most medical studies are performed on people of a certain type. It would be tough to validate results on exercise for people who walk vs. people in wheelchairs. This isn't discrimination, it's a simple experiment group model.

      July 22, 2010 at 18:48 | Report abuse |
    • Burbank

      And people that don't have injuries that can't stand much.

      July 22, 2010 at 19:27 | Report abuse |
  13. jon

    Big fat Americans even try to find the absolute closest parking spot at every store. Great!! Their big butts often won't even fit into a seat on a plane. And how some of these people get their overblown guts under the steering wheel of a car is a mystery to me. Lose about a hundred pounds you porkers!

    July 22, 2010 at 18:31 | Report abuse | Reply
    • PNK

      Laffing my As* off at your post!! Cool, I just lost 100 pounds!

      July 22, 2010 at 20:14 | Report abuse |
    • blondegeisha

      just had some big fat European relatives visit for their free meal,its not only Americans that are over weight.

      July 22, 2010 at 20:33 | Report abuse |
    • DanW

      Just so you know, obesity is a world-wide epidemic. Check the WHO web site. The people of Polynesia are far fatter than Americans over all. Americans are the fattest in the developed world, but the Brits, Mexicans, Slovaks and Greeks are right behind us. I know they like to preach at Americans, but "We're not as fat as you" is not really a very good defense. They are rapidly catching up.

      July 22, 2010 at 21:35 | Report abuse |
    • Yankee fan

      I also love when people go to work out at the gym but take the closest parking spot they can find. And if they can't find a legal one, they'll park illegally...they can work their butts off at the gym, but they can't walk from their car to the door and back!

      July 22, 2010 at 22:10 | Report abuse |
    • Megan

      Yankee Fan – I wont circle a parking lot for a good space, but I prefer to find one closer to the front when going to the gym for one reason – depending on the workout I do, sometimes it hurts or is hard to walk. Some of the times my legs are so quivery it's an issue to walk much, so I like to lessen how far I have to walk immediately after a workout. I don't really think this is a problem, although I'm sure some people do it out of laziness as you suggest.

      July 23, 2010 at 08:53 | Report abuse |
    • Daniel

      Yes actually is was the WHO that mentioned somewhere that for the first time in human history there are more obese people on the planet than starving, it's certainly not popular to mention this. But then few believe the world is progressing despite it being right under their noses.

      July 24, 2010 at 09:50 | Report abuse |
  14. Ron

    My mother exercised very little and sits most of the day. She will turn 90 in October. I wonder how many more years would have been added to her life if she had been more active?

    July 22, 2010 at 18:39 | Report abuse | Reply
    • timc

      friend, you have to be kidding.. your grandmother? thats ONE person, they did a study on over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND people.. get real with your sarcasm, one person is not evidence one way or another

      July 22, 2010 at 21:16 | Report abuse |
    • elle

      My mother is turning 91 and has spent most of her life sitting. Her sisters - same story. My mother smoked filterless cigarettes, ate red meat about 5 times a week and weighed too much until very recently. She is mentally sharp as a tack but I consider hers a wasted life - no adventure, no fun, no friends, no participation in social organizaitons or charities. Perfect health, she even has all her teeth, but all she ever does is sit and watch TV A totally vicarious life. No kind of mother to me or grandmother to my kid at all. Oh well, the luck of the draw.

      July 22, 2010 at 21:24 | Report abuse |
  15. Pete

    So if I put the TV on the ceiling and lie down instead, does that help?

    July 22, 2010 at 18:39 | Report abuse | Reply
    • ghs1999

      Props for creativity

      July 26, 2010 at 12:30 | Report abuse |
  16. Zeus

    I am amazed that none of the commenters has blamed Obama for this yet. I, for one, view this news as further proof that George Bush doesn't care about black people.

    July 22, 2010 at 18:41 | Report abuse | Reply
  17. DAISHI

    As I understood it even among those who exercise regularly and are not obese, the same statistic applies.

    July 22, 2010 at 18:43 | Report abuse | Reply
  18. AGuest9

    Yeah... Try sitting 9-11 hours a day, meetings scheduled during lunch, so no chance of exercising then, and I work for a health care organization... Go figure.

    July 22, 2010 at 18:43 | Report abuse | Reply
  19. jda1104

    Talking more than an hour a day could reduce you life span by 50 years....

    July 22, 2010 at 18:44 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Pete

      Depends on what you say and to who.

      July 22, 2010 at 20:49 | Report abuse |
  20. Chatty Cathy

    Yeah, live longer so you can stay stimulated with meaningless smart phones, video games and gadgets, wireless apps and paperless books. I think i'll stay seated.

    July 22, 2010 at 18:50 | Report abuse | Reply
    • dee

      Yeah, really - live longer WHY?

      July 22, 2010 at 21:30 | Report abuse |
  21. Jacob

    Blood doesn't flow "thru" veins, it flows "through". Who are you, an advertising agent for a fast food company?

    July 22, 2010 at 18:53 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Mr. Deltoid

      "Thru," according to Merriam Webster's online dictionary, as well as http://www.dictionary.com is a variant of the word "through," and therefore is perfectly acceptable. Let me know if you need additional lessons in spelling and grammar.

      July 22, 2010 at 22:25 | Report abuse |
    • matt

      Yeah, acceptable spelling for street signs.

      July 23, 2010 at 10:11 | Report abuse |
  22. Abe

    Was this written by an eighth grader? Is this what passes for medical news at CNN?

    "Prolonged time sitting suppresses your immune system, which may increase the risk of cancer and other diseases." Really? Perhaps we should prescribe long periods of sitting for organ transplant recipients, rather than costly immunosuppressant drugs. I challenge the author to present a single randomized controlled study that investigated the effects of sitting on immune system function.

    "And your blood isn’t circulating as it should when you’re sedentary for long periods of time. When blood doesn’t flow thru your veins up to your heart, it could lead to dangerous blood clot." How is it that the blood isn't circulating as it should? Is the sitting individual still breathing? Are they maintaining their body temperature? Are they still metabolically active? If they're alive, the blood is flowing "as it should". If the blood isn't flowing "thru" the veins, where does the author propose it has gone?

    It is possible to explain physiology in lay terms without oversimplification to the point of inaccuracy.

    July 22, 2010 at 18:57 | Report abuse | Reply
    • AGuest9

      I know six IT workers who have suffered DVTs during the past three years. How many people suffer DVTs after long flights? Sitting is not good.

      July 22, 2010 at 19:17 | Report abuse |
    • nanobot

      Abe: You are so confident that there is no physiologic explanation for a correlation that has just been proven. You scoff at the statement that slow flowing blood could increase the risk of cancer. Well let me explain it to you, although I already did elsewhere in this blog, your utter defiant arrogance tempts me to repeat myself. 1. when blood loses it's motion, especially in veins, which often have valves, it causes "platelet activation" which is an extremely complex cascade of chemical events involving numerous cell lines and cytokines as well as vascular permeability factors which are helpful in wound healing 2. the cytokines from platelets, most notably IL-2, IL-12 and adhesion molecules such as CD-40 (Avandia) are able to modulate the immune response to down regulate, or conversely, upregulate via low levels the important effector systems used in killing cancer. These systems are known as the TH-2 or TH-1 immune arms. 3. The relative proportions of these arms determine the cytotoxic strength necessary for the cancer killing function 4. Modern research on cancer therapy have tried immunization modalities attempting to enhance this but have failed because of the lack of "co-expressed" molecules necessary for this immune induction. 5. Yes, activated platelets when given in transfusion cause immunosuppression and promotion of the very cancer for which the platelets are given as treatment of (chemo causes thrombocytopenia). This is a tremendously unrecognized problem in platelet manufacturing, but could be used experimentally to treat graft rejecction. 6. In fact, it is very easy to do a literature search and find that many diseases (risk of stroke and MI, multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease, IBD) have as a presenting laboratory finding, circulating activated platelets (measured by CD antigen expression). This is NOT a routine laboratory test but if a manual differential is done on a CBC, you will see "platelet clumps" in many cases. SO THERE IS THE RESEARCH DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOU. FROM NOW ON YOU SHOULD PROBABLY HIT THE JOURNALS SINCE YOU ARE SO KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH.

      July 28, 2010 at 01:15 | Report abuse |
  23. CSUNikki

    Man, I am soooo screwed! So much thinking that having a degree in accounting and allllll the sitting in front of a computer screen would lessen my lifespan. Crap... I should of picked another major! Oh well....

    July 22, 2010 at 18:57 | Report abuse | Reply
    • nanobot

      Silly. This is not the only factor which decreases life expectancy. Are you an angry person? Do you drive wrecklessly? Are you exposed to toxic chemicals? Infectious agents? Just count your blessings!!!! And get up and walk around every 30 minutes.

      July 28, 2010 at 01:18 | Report abuse |
  24. edwaters

    "When blood doesn’t flow thru your veins"

    Thru??? Come on editors...

    July 22, 2010 at 18:59 | Report abuse | Reply
  25. Kennedy

    DEAR GOD, LOOKS LIKE WE'LL ALL BE DEAD BEFORE 2012 GETS TO HAPPEN

    July 22, 2010 at 19:16 | Report abuse | Reply
  26. Burbank

    So what else is new? Duh!

    July 22, 2010 at 19:25 | Report abuse | Reply
  27. Johanna

    I visited a physician at a medical clinic which is part of a large group health organization. Before my consultation with him, I overheard he and a colleague vehemently agree that the 'new money saving tactic' put forth by the administration/owners
    was absurd. I questioned him about what I had overheard. He mentioned that all the physicians in this small clinic were now required to wear pedometers (for a designated amount of time) to see how many steps could be eliminated in their rounds. He said some physicians had to move/trade their offices a few feet down the hall after the pedometer results. So much for 'I like to move it move it...I like to move it move it...I like to move it...move it!!

    July 22, 2010 at 19:35 | Report abuse | Reply
    • nanobot

      Right! It's our philosophy that is killing us. We avoid stairs. We avoid bending over, making an "extra" trip down the hall, or an extra visit next door. We think economy as if we would melt to do something physical. We hire people do pull the weeds and scoops the snow. What we need to change is our thinking. When I shovel the garden, yes it's work, but I say to myself, "it's good for my heart that I shovel this dirt". And then, we wear shoes to work than no earthly soul could walk in. Those shoes cause more than bad feet, they cause bad health from inactivity. YAY, to the doctors at your clinic who saw the fatal flaw in the company productivity plan. They see the writing on the wall.

      July 28, 2010 at 01:27 | Report abuse |
  28. almxx

    This is all so business can make you stand so they can save money. Next will be the 12 hour days 6 days a week. If exercise is so good, how come in the 1800s people didn't live extreme long lives? Clean air, unprocessed food, clean water, etc., and
    PLENTY OF EXERCISE. How come fruit flies, when kept from flying as they normally do; DOUBLE THEIR LIFE SPAN.? Fruit flies are used by science, because they are basically LIKE US.

    July 22, 2010 at 19:42 | Report abuse | Reply
    • DanW

      Hmmm......excellent points.

      July 22, 2010 at 21:42 | Report abuse |
  29. Perilous

    This article is atrocious. It was poorly written, spelled badly, punctuated badly and is laughably oversimplified.

    CNN, you should be ashamed of yourself for publishing this tripe under your masthead – but not as ashamed as the so-called "medical senior producer" who wrote it. Is she 13? That would be her only excuse, and it wouldn't even be a good one. At 13 I was writing university level material. This woman is getting paid to write as part of her job and still can't manage to do it correctly.

    This country is in SO much trouble.

    July 22, 2010 at 19:49 | Report abuse | Reply
    • timc

      I find it humorous when people act as if the country will fall apart if we don't get our spelling and grammar together. Its not as if humans started without language, let alone spelling, grammar, and punctuation.. The end is near. Not

      July 22, 2010 at 21:20 | Report abuse |
    • Mr. Deltoid

      Actually this article is, by modern standards, and by "blogging standards" (THIS IS A BLOG) written properly. You were writing "university level material" at 13? Sure you did, Shakespeare. You lie like a dead dog. And if you're so smart, what are you doing with your life besides slandering CNN employees? Why don't you become a journalist? I'll tell you why: because you can't. You sit behind the safety of internet anonymity and hurl childish insults. That sure takes a lot of backbone. This country is "in SO much trouble" because ignorant buffoons such as you have the freedom to waste the time of others by posting your inane comments on the internet.

      July 22, 2010 at 21:34 | Report abuse |
    • DanW

      As a foreign language teacher, I know that communication is the goal of speaking and that the world will not fall apart if a kid makes a grammatical or spelling error. I do, however, have to point out that our disdain for grammar and proper writing are troubling. It's not the bad grammer, per se, it's the lack of caring. People do not take time write anything well, much less edit what they have written. Language is like an ax. If we let the ax become dull, we will have to work twice as hard to achieve the same effect. While the country may not fall apart because of it, the culture will still suffer. Where are the Hemmingways of this generation, who revolutionize the art? They don't exist. Innovation in literature today means nothing more than proving that you can smut.

      July 22, 2010 at 21:53 | Report abuse |
  30. David

    Oh who cares. No study can pull everyone of the population into the same sample to determine anything of value. I highly doubt that this study, while it may have some merit, is worthless. Look at history and people have been sitting for extended hours for thousands of years. This study is but one of thousands of possibilities in which there could be thousands of different possibilities affecting an outcome. If anyone believes this crap, then you need a life. What is old are these stupid studies coming out every week. It's junk science.

    July 22, 2010 at 19:56 | Report abuse | Reply
    • timc

      It really is not junk, and in fact people have NOT been sitting for thousands of years. Besides, thousands of years ago the average lifespan was what, 45 years tops? Come on people, it painfully obvious that sitting all day is bad for you, and if you don't believe it, then its probably because you ARE sitting all day and don't want to feel bad about it.

      July 22, 2010 at 21:22 | Report abuse |
  31. Maps

    So does this mean that we can all tell our "bosses" that we can't just sit at our computers all day? And that we can sue them if they do not let us "up". Love new studies that give people more ammo for lawsuits !!!! Thank you ACS – there will be those who will use this to their advantage.

    July 22, 2010 at 20:11 | Report abuse | Reply
    • nanobot

      Heads up: don't sue your employer. You basically have no rights.

      July 28, 2010 at 01:32 | Report abuse |
  32. Magnum Serpentine

    So since I am not suppose to sit longer than 3 hours, I should spend no more than 1 1/2 hours sleeping, (Assuming you split the difference in sleeping and sitting) Ohhhh wait... What was that you say? People who sleep less than 8 hours a day have a greater chance of dying young? You don't say eh? Well now that is a problem... Don't sit or lay for 3 hours max, but don't sleep less than 8 hours... So do we sleep standing up???? This has got to be the most stupidest thing CNN ever wrote and thats my opinion..

    July 22, 2010 at 20:17 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Mr. Deltoid

      You think this article is stupid because you lack the ability to perform basic math (that I learned in kindergarten). Work 8 hours. Commute 2 hours. Sleep 8 hours. That is 18 hours, leaving 6 hours of leisure time. It is, as the article (that you did not read) states: LEISURE TIME. The point of the article is to tell you about how your decisions impact your health. You should expect your parents, your therapist, or your babysitter to map out your daily to-do list, not CNN.

      July 22, 2010 at 21:14 | Report abuse |
    • timc

      Man you are a moron. Sleep and sitting are two totally different activities that the body responds to completely differently. Sleeping = restoration time, whereas sitting = being non productive time. Also, as the article states you're probably eating random crap while sitting, whereas last time I checked I was not munching candy bars in my sleep.

      July 22, 2010 at 21:25 | Report abuse |
  33. whatnext

    So it's ok if my idea of recreation is tweeting, making inane cell phone calls, texting my way down the street and watching movies on my smart phone, as long as I do it standing up?

    July 22, 2010 at 20:23 | Report abuse | Reply
  34. Mr. Deltoid

    A lot of you people did not read this article, but commented on it anyway. You state this is "no breaking news because we all know a sedentary lifestyle leads to a lower lifespan." But you are missing the entire point. The article states that EVEN IF YOU EXERCISE A LOT, YOU STILL ARE AT RISK IF YOU REMAIN SEATED DURING YOUR LEISURE TIME. Develop reading comprehension skills before wasting my time with your comments, please.

    July 22, 2010 at 21:04 | Report abuse | Reply
    • FyourGod

      thank you

      July 23, 2010 at 09:53 | Report abuse |
    • midnightrain

      i'm always so amused at people who get irritated at other people's posts who think they're sooo much smarter than everyone else....

      July 23, 2010 at 14:59 | Report abuse |
  35. dwight huth

    Just another propoganda bit to keep people away from the internet so that they will spend more money in going to library to reasd a book etc all of which puts money back into the pockets of Big Oil. Do not listen to those that say sitting is goingto cause you die earlier in life.

    July 22, 2010 at 21:10 | Report abuse | Reply
    • DanW

      LOL....You're serious? Oh, my!

      July 22, 2010 at 21:59 | Report abuse |
  36. Richie

    Who the heck wants to live longer anyway? I hate these kinds of studies...they are mostly baseless...2 years from now they will say that standing causes some other problem...about 5 years ago egg was bad for you. Then 4 years ago it was good...then they reversed it a few years back. Same thing with coffee...make up your mind already !

    July 22, 2010 at 21:11 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Dee

      margarine, same thing. 20 years ago it was god's gift to the medical community for people with heart disease. now it's a transfat that ups your triglycerides. i don't believe any of these studies anymore.

      July 22, 2010 at 22:15 | Report abuse |
  37. Robert

    This is another BS study that has no scientific merit to it. The study is flawed, if you stand and walk more they would say you wear your body out and die faster next. Mind you scientific studies in the past said we were never meant to walk up right cause our back was not designed to support it and why we hunch over in time... Food for thought!

    July 22, 2010 at 21:12 | Report abuse | Reply
    • rick

      Where is your evidence that the study is flawed?

      July 22, 2010 at 21:27 | Report abuse |
    • timc

      Actually we hunch over time because of gravity pulling on our bones, just like your face gets droopy when you're older.. Not because its mother nature giving us a sign we should hunch over all the time

      July 22, 2010 at 21:28 | Report abuse |
    • Luna

      I'm in complete agreement with your comments. I could write a book as to the cause(s) of obesity in both adults and children, and yes, a sedentary life isn't the healthiest, but come-on, is the the best CNN (comical network nutjobs) have to offer? And this person's title is "Medical (cough, cough) Senior Producer?!

      July 22, 2010 at 21:59 | Report abuse |
  38. zingo

    CNN, careful! No one will read your ads (revenue) if no one's sitting. Ya gotta do what ya gotta do-
    encourage your readership to sit, read your site,and buy your ad stuff.

    July 22, 2010 at 21:15 | Report abuse | Reply
  39. YS

    This kind of research is completely BS. Completely irresponsible and utterly clueless.

    July 22, 2010 at 21:15 | Report abuse | Reply
    • rick

      And you're basing that on the extensive research that YOU have done on the matter?

      July 22, 2010 at 21:26 | Report abuse |
  40. Mike

    what a retarded article

    July 22, 2010 at 21:16 | Report abuse | Reply
  41. Joe

    This is a completely ridiculous, meaningless study. They interviewed people for 13 years, and enough of them died during that time to generate a trend worth publishing? No mention whether or not the people who spent more time sitting did so because of an extraordinarily hard life, were already obese, etc.

    This "study" is trash.

    July 22, 2010 at 21:22 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Kyle

      This isn't a study, it's an article about a study. You want CNN to reproduce the methods and results of the academic paper on a pop-culture news site? 90% of the folks here would have their eyes glaze over...

      July 23, 2010 at 09:40 | Report abuse |
  42. Some1Special

    All truckers/bus drivers/people in offices better change your jobs ASAP 🙂

    July 22, 2010 at 21:23 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Daniel

      Too true, if one starts dring a truck OTR and smoking at 21 it's unlikely they will make their sixtieth birthday, just the facts.

      July 24, 2010 at 09:57 | Report abuse |
  43. Beth Boyle

    Hmmmmmmmm I think I need to stretch my legs. Later.....

    July 22, 2010 at 21:23 | Report abuse | Reply
  44. Larry

    What a bunch of baloney. I suppose the people that did this study were walking around during their research.

    July 22, 2010 at 21:24 | Report abuse | Reply
  45. rick

    This article is completely worthless. What do they mean by "sooner"? Are we talking a month? 'Cause if it means a month, well, who gives a crap?! Now, if you tell me that by sitting more you'll die 9 years sooner, ok that's significant. WIthout that bit of information however, the article is useless as a piece of health advice.

    July 22, 2010 at 21:25 | Report abuse | Reply
    • PabloD

      I was going to say exactly the same thing. If it's only going to be a month, we might as well kick back and take it easy.

      July 23, 2010 at 00:59 | Report abuse |
  46. Lee

    Great so I can earn my living sitting at a computer and desk for 8 hours a day or I can be healthy on unemployment. Nice options.

    July 22, 2010 at 21:28 | Report abuse | Reply
  47. DG

    The more medical news I read, the more depressed I get. Much of the advice that comes down the pipe is inapplicable to the lifestyle that many of us have been living for most of our lives. This particular piece is an example of a behavior that I cannot possible change without going into an entire different field of work, as I currently sit at a desk in front of a computer for much of the day. My employer is unlikely to change the way that they operate in the near future, so, as it is, I am rather stuck in (forgive the pun). This piece follows on a spate of articles (in different mainstream publication) that I have recently read that address the hazards of certain behaviors, most of which are "uniquely" American. An example might be; "Why the French live longer and are happier" or "The key to a long life is an Asian diet and spiritual outlook", or "Dark winters are bad for your psychology". I am not questioning the validity nor the benefits of these studies or these behaviors, but rather how realistic they are for the lions share of the people who are exposed to this particular or to other general health advice columns. Perhaps it is a good reason to be depressed, but I would prefer some advice that I could really use.

    July 22, 2010 at 21:30 | Report abuse | Reply
  48. jojos11

    Yeah- because it worked so well for our ancestors who farmed all day and died at 40

    July 22, 2010 at 21:31 | Report abuse | Reply
    • almxx

      A good point, but in their case they died of overwork. When they went to sleep, they dreamed they were working.

      July 23, 2010 at 02:34 | Report abuse |
  49. cincydiane

    There is too much talk of what constitutes healthy living. Do the best you can, stop over-analyzing and move on. Don't overthing everything!!!

    July 22, 2010 at 21:35 | Report abuse | Reply
  50. jdurand

    Great! What the hell are those of who are stuck at a desk for 8 hours supposed to do?

    I can't type meaningfully at a keyboard while I stand or walk away from my desk for much of the day.

    July 22, 2010 at 21:36 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Noble9

      Sue your boss when you have a heart attack.

      July 22, 2010 at 22:04 | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Advertisement
About this blog

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.