This study is silly. The findings can't be limited to watching tv or a computer. The findings should still hold if you were reading, playing cards, talking to someone, writing, etc.

And of course your antecdotal evidence trumps a scientific study and is applicable to the population as a whole.

@gary

The study is not silly. The study used "sitting at the computer" because that's what a lot of people do now. If you take the time to actually read all the words in the article, and I know that may be hard for you, but it says simply that spending most of the day *sitting* is what's bad... you could sit and write the next best novel, or sit and paint a great masterpiece, or sit there and watch bugs hitting the zapper, but *sitting* is what's bad...

Well, crap, most desk jobs are going to kill you then. 8 hour day, 6+ hours minimum at the desk or your boss will fire you for not doing your job. Might as well get out the suicide pill at that rate, guess unemployment and walking everywhere is the way to go.

There we go again, "well since my job is going to kill me I might as well quit". Does anyone stop to think about things before they say them? I have an idea that will solve both problems. It's this fancy little technique that I'm currently filing a patent on called "standing while you work". You know, instead of sitting, so you can pace a little bit, shift back and forth. It is the act of "sitting" all day that is bad, but no one said you have to "sit" all day to work. It may not be convenient if your employer won't get you a standing desk, but they do exist. Now, I can't help it if you'd rather quit your job than stand and work all day, but it's not just an either/or question.

Cool! Glad you're going to pitch in and get me one of those standing workstations as the budget here has kind of dried up and our company has had a price freeze on buying new office furniture for some time now.

As to fidgeting and moving around, guess I've already been doing that and annoying my coworkers for years. No worries then...

All you need is something to raise the height of your monitor and keyboard/mouse to standing height. I had a coworker that used boxes. Stop looking for problems and start finding solutions.

RevLucifer -- wow! Lucky we have you around to fix all the problems and clarify everything.

Wow. What a moronic study. Diet wasn't even considered. Geneolgy wasn't included. Let's do a study and see how many people die in automobile accidents and use a sampling of three hundred people from a tribe in Kenya.

the headline along is pretty moronic. you can't tell people that. every devoted couch potato will see this and use it as an excuse to blow off trying do anything. more msn filler.

Rev, if I caught you stacking my equipment on boxes at your station so you could stand, you might as well walk on out. I will not risk $2000 worth of equipment to someone that needs to stand and fidget all day. This report is moronic for the simple reason that there have been desk jobs for over 150 years. If you want to stand around all day when you work, get a job at McDonalds, but stay out of the business world. It is more than a keyboard/ mouse/ monitor that people need. How about their phone? How about their calculator? How about writing something down on a tablet or scratch paper? Oh, that's right... you can't... you have a pile of BOXES on your desk. You talk about others not thinking...

Sounds like we need to convert microsoft office to a virtual reality format. Instead of pointing and clicking in explorer we can reach out and grab files and store them in 3d locations around the office. Think how fun CAD would be! If you could draw construction plans with a wii or Kinex, you would never have a hard time finding energetic, capable draftspeople.

You are right ! There are many other things to consider. Stress, insecticides poisoning our food( they now believe some of these insecticides can cause ADD, Genetically egineered food :( , food additives that kill brain cells (MSG's)yet the FDA still allows all of this ....exercising is only part of the solution!

Tim W. your awsome and funny!!! I love it! If you'll notice I commented on diet too and some other factors that maybe should be considered!

RevLucifer,
A few years ago another study indicated that too much standing is detrimental as well.

My study says that today Americans sit more than ever. And they live longer than they ever have in the history of man. Therefore, the more you sit the longer you live. Where's my gov't grant money??

Everyone should notice that there is absolutely no documentation with this study which could very well mean it's bogus. There are so many of these so called 'studies' done that later prove to be incorrect one has to be very careful with accepting the results.

Properly done studies involve thousands of people and years of tracking them. When the results are reported all these details are reported so those reading the results have reason to believe them.

Wow! I work in front of a computer all day. Since exercising isn't doing me any good, I think I'll quit wasting my time. Goodbye treadmill and walks. Hello couch and cookies!

Why are we wasting time responding to RevLucifer? His comments about standing while we're at our workstations is as inane as the article itself. Not everyone can work jobs that require standing and moving around all day (and some people have physical impairments that prevent doing this anyway). Not everybody can afford to live close enough to their jobs that they can bike or walk to work. Good grief! Why are we doing these kinds of studies anyway? Working is going to kill us. Not working is going to kill us. Working out won't help us if we have to sit for hours anyway...blah blah blah. Everything we do is bad obviously. Live sensibly People!!! I was hoping that this article would provide some useful information along with the abysmal study information. Apparently my hopes were misplaced. This is the last time I'm wasting my time reading these types of articles. Good Day!

Thanks for letting me vent.

Yeah, and instead of the Rev dying from a heart attack, he'll probably be smashed by his co-worker's monitor falling off the homemade desk he made him.

WTH

What will kill you Quicker is worring about all the things that will kill you .ha ha

You can say that again!

My mother's in her mid-80's and all she does is sit in her cozy chair watching TV in her pj's, or sleeps! My dad is one year older and he does everything for her, including the laundry. They both drink, only mom starts at 10:00 a.m.!

you must be proud.

This one antecdotal account doesn't mean anything. Just because YOUR mother or grandmother did this doesn't mean that was normal or that the average person who would adopt that life style would live to old age. I hate it when a study comes out and people say, "Well, my great-aunt Sally never...." Or "I knew this guy who..." What your personal experiences are have no bearing on the study. These are scientific studies that apply on a broad basis not to your one particular instance.

can we all agree that these "scientists are fulla crap?! and don't forget the recent de-bunking of the autism/innoculation brouhaha crap! who pays for all these sh-tty studies? Pinget, truer words were never spoken, thank you. i hope that none of you will remember this crap tomorrow or stress over it.

I wouldn't even call this "science" - there's no experiment here, its just looking at data from surveys and medical records and finding correlations. Even on anonymous surveys people overreport things like exercise and sexual activity to make themselves feel better.

"Science" is nothing more than the observation and analysis of data, followed by the attempt to reproduce the observations to verify that data. Experiments are simply meant to be a vehicle for gathering that data, but they are by no means the only vehicle. Often in the history of "Science", people would observe and effect, analyze it, and then attempt to reproduce i t. The "reproduction" is where most "experiments" fit. Beyond that, this is a field of science called "statistical analysis".

Wait, you are calling this science?! Let me explain something to you, Rev. You apparently like to come off as being all superior and intelligent, but it takes only a careful read of what you say to see otherwise. Science is not simple observation! It is CONTROLLED observation, which this study has nothing to do with. They picked out around 600 people, took a baseline health profile for them and had them complete a survey... which they may or may not have completed truthfully. Then they sent them on their way only to keep tabs on them every so often. Really? You consider that science?

Let me tell you how science would handle this. A well trained scientist would have EVERY variable accounted for... diet, amount of exercize, amount of down time, stress levels, etc. None of that remotely occurred here, so to say that this has anything based in science is simple ignorance. If you have a need to place it, you can put it into simple Statistics, because all you are doing is number crunching. That Rev, is a field of Mathmatics.

You totally ROCK Kinkomaster!!!!!!

...even in death, you express yourself very well.....I'm impressed...

Not only that, but life is a sexually-transmitted disease that is universally fatal.

I once read (and I'll have to paraphrase), that "the major cause of death in the world is birth." That said, I guess we just have to make the most of it that we can.

Wildcat, I just cannot believe that humanity is a disease. I don't feel that I am here for no purpose.

...and I always thought it was 89.67935% give or take 0.00318....I guess ya learn something everyday.....

Pinget: AMEN!!! Yours is the best!!!

the point is that your job is bad for you in the manner stated. it is true. case closed.

Or maybe it would be healthier to just get out of your chair every once and a while and move around, start an exercise program, eat and sleep right and not quit before you even start...which is what it sounds like you're doing. Regardless of your lack of motivation and ability to make an excuse not to workout before you even try it, I, a personal trainer of 8 years, work with plenty of clients who work from a desk and manage to maintain a very healthy lifestyle.

You either choose to let one study convince you that there's no hope for you or you get off your butt and get to it. Or not.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back there, Kyle.

You could stand and raise the computer and monitor. When I used to do computer support there was a Admin assistant who asked us to raise up her workstation so she could work standing.

Don't break your jaw running your mouth larry. I work at a desk but I do push ups every time I use the bathroom. The push ups add up over the course of the day and keep me in great shape.

No no, just reduce your hours to part time, 4 hours a day. If your employer rejects, go to court. That way we can find jobs for many more programmers and solve the unemployment problem of India!

bozo, at least you got your own name right.

Blithering...Well, I'm pretty sure the article was addressing what you did in your leisure time. If you have to sit down and work, great, but when you get done working don't spend it on the couch for the other half of the day. I think that's what the article was trying to say.

Hey bruce, maybe I should capatilize all the letters in my name to show how obnoxious and annoying I am. No wait, you already did that.

Actually, what the article was saying is that just the act of sitting for a large portion of your day, regardless of your other health habits (exercise, nutrition, etc) will *increase your risk for heart disease and premature death*. I don't understand how some of you people can tie your shoes every morning with how little you seem to read these articles before commenting on them.

I'd like someone to point out where it says any of the following, which most of you seem to infer: 1) if you have a job where you sit all day, forget about nutrition and exercise because it's pointless. 2) if you have a job where you sit all day, quit because it will kill you. 3) if you exercise every time you get up from the computer, then this doesn't apply to you. 4) if you don't sit down all day you will live forever.

Simply put, no matter how healthy you are, the simple act of sitting down for a large part of the day was shown to be linked with increased risk for heart disease and premature death (yes, premature... you can presume it's premature because everyone dies someday). Now I'm not saying that you should take every study at face value without some independent verification, peer review, or the like, and I'm not saying that you should quit your job because it will increase your risk of dying early, but to completely discount the study because your aunt or uncle or grandparents sat around for 18 hours a day and live to be 105, or because it's inconvenient for you since you have a desk job, and even though you work out for 3 hours every day (and 6 on Sundays), this study says you're still more likely to die early is absolutely ludicrous.

Read the article again, and when you can put all the words together so that you come out with "regardless of lifestyle, sitting for most of the day will increase the likelihood of heart disease and premature death" then you'll have enough intelligence to have a real discussion about the supposed merits, or lack thereof, of the study. A study which I'm sure none of you have actually read. If you want to discuss what this means when compared to other recent studies that show that even a moderate amount of exercise can help you live longer, fine, but I don't see any of that debate going on here. Just a bunch of "so should I just quit my job and be homeless then/I exercise every waking moment when I'm not at my desk so this doesn't apply to me/my mom never once exercised in her life and sat down all day long and lived to be very old" bullsh*t excuses to keep from having to confront the big question.

And that is, "How can I change the things I do now so that I'm not sitting on my ass as much each day?"

Rev: Let me repeat the very first line of the article:

"Spending more than four hours a day sitting in front of a television or computer more than doubles your risk of dying from or being hospitalized for heart disease, according to a new study."

That is from the article itself, not the study, I realize. But it is incorrect as written, and I don't have to read the entire study report to know that. That sentence is what the AUTHOR culled from the study, not what the study itself says. For example, a professional athlete who spends 8 hours each day running, lifting weights, catching balls and practicing on the field might very well spend 5 hours in front of a TV or computer screen after practice is over. I'm telling you as an ordinary layman, right here, right now, and without any hesitation whatsoever, that such athlete is NOT at an increased risk of heart disease because of the 5 hours spent sitting in front of a screen.

Further, if a person spends 7 hours a day working at a desk in front of a computer and then leaves work and maintains a very active lifestyle with no screen activity to speak of, they are not at an increased risk of heart disease, either. The fact that you sit in front of a screen has nothing at all to do with heart disease. How much time you spend sitting, total, obviously does.

I didn't need some new study to tell me any of that. Studies are often misinterpreted, even if the data is 100% correct. For decades, several studies on dental habits and longevity were used to tell patients and others that bad dental health can lead to early death. Those studies were eventually put in the circular file, when it was concluded that people who ignore dental health often ignore their health, PERIOD. Dental health didn't necessarily factor into any of the studied deaths AT ALL, it was merely reflective of a general tendency of some of the subjects to disregard ALL health concerns. The numbers in the study weren't "wrong", they were indeed quite accurate. But what the researchers concluded FROM those numbers was completely off base.

That may or may not be the case here. But at least ONE sentence used by the author to describe the study - the very first one - is not correct. When I see that sort of thing, right off the bat, I know the article isn't worth reading. The study itself may be fine, but this article and some of the conclusions drawn within it, definitely aren't.

You tell em!!! You are 100% right!!! I have a job where I sit in front of a computer 7 hrs. a day...but I also hike and eat healthy Organic food...I go way out of my way to eat extremely healthy and I exercise, dance , and hike....That first line of this article is an insult to alot of us and I think the writer of this article is being way too general! Congrats. on calling the writer of this article out!! ;-)

Best news I've heard in awhile. - You are missing the point that the other posters are making, which is that this ridiculous study essentially says that you can't win for losing. One day, they tell us that a minimal amount of exercise per week will extend our lives and reduce a long list of illnesses, including various forms of cancer. The next day, they are telling us don't bother to exercise if you have a job that requires sedentary activity for 8 hours and a commute. That describes most white collar jobs in this country. Since we no longer manufacture anything in the USA, the only jobs remaining outside of desk jobs are in construction, which is dead due to the economy and housing crisis.

I guarantee you that if you take a close look at the manner in which this study was performed and how the data were analyzed, glaring errors will be apparent. One also has to consider errors in the reporting of this study, given the high caliber of writing usually demonstrated by the MSNBC staff.

Thanks for explaining that to the morons, scales! :)

Of course, the final recourse of the Science-hater. Oh, the study will be filled with glaring errors. Have you read the study? Why presume it will be filled with errors then? Oh, but wait, let's denigrate the reporting staff that told us about the study too. Because even if there isn't a problem with the study, there's sure to be a problem with the people telling us about the study, and they, of course, are twisting the facts so that we all quit our jobs, because, well, I guess reporters are paid a premium on articles based on the unemployment rate? Show me the errors, and then you can talk.

RevLucifer, I'm generally on the side of science, but you're talking through your hat. There are plenty enough of examples of experiments done incorrectly that people have the right to question the methodology of one that contradicts what they see around them. In fact, that is a vital part of the scientific method.

Just because a study produces counterintuitive results, that doesn't mean in and of itself that it is wrong. So these folks decrying the study because it says something that is out of whack with how they perceive the world are off base. But your apparent blind faith in whatever "science" tells you is just as bad. It's worse, actually. Having a skeptical nature is fundamental to the process of producing good results.

"Show me the errors"? You are forgetting Rule #1 of the scientific process: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs." The burden of proof is on those making the claim, not on those questioning it. There is nowhere near enough detail in this story to make a decision one way or the other on the accuracy of the report, which is in itself a problem.

RevLucifer - I hate to have to tell you this, but I'm not a "science-hater". I have a doctorate in chemistry and earn my living with it. After years of reading science journals, it's easy to spot research that was not scientifically well planned, that doesn't employ the proper controls, that doesn't properly analyze the data, etc. As Dan stated, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. The burden of proof is on those making the claim, not on those questioning it." Any scientist or astute layperson is going to question a study that is contradictory to well established research. It's also not beyond the realm of possibility that researchers lie to gain publicity, as is evidenced by the recent disclosure that the study linking autism and vaccinations is bogus.

As far as the MSNBC writers and reporters, it's next to impossible to find an article nowadays that doesn't contain glaring omissions and errors that might be caught before publication if the document were proofread by someone with more than a fifth grade education. In addition, you really are a fool if you quit your job as a result of this study and the manner in which it was reported.

@BestNews: I agree with you, but the trouble is, you actually have to get in pretty good shape before those factors start to outweigh the PAIN. If you've never allowed yourself to get really out of shape, it's hard to understand. But when first starting to work out again, it can be like hell. Once you get some wind back and shed a few pounds, it starts to feel really good and it's much easier to keep going. Been there, done that. Overall, it's far easier to get in reasonable shape and then maintain it. Exercising to lose weight and then stopping the exercise once you've achieved "the goal" is a recipe for future pain. Just the way it is.

Some people just don't believe that it will ever feel really good to exercise, and they quit for one reason or another before giving it a real chance to "take". It works the same way for just about everyone, seriously. If you can get in better shape, exercise feels great and you don't have to work as hard at it to maintain your weight, health and sense of well-being. It becomes a simple routine like showering or eating. You actually feel BAD if you don't do it. You eventually tend to try more difficult exercises because you WANT to, not because you NEED to.

It's hard for some people to even imagine any of that, and I can certainly empathize with them (having been there myself), but it's all true. This isn't some rah-rah nonsense. It's just the way our bodies work. They want to be in shape, and let us know when they aren't happy. More people should listen to what their bodies are trying to tell them, for their own good.

Exercising is absolutely needed for everyone nowadays and this study did a piss poor job of validating that everyone should still be exercsing no matter what shape you are. Don't let one study bring you down, there's always two sides to a story but fitness is here to stay and hopefully help cure our nation's health care problem.

Here

and here

And if you did even a cursory search using that little search bar in the top right hand corner of this web page using "Ashley Turton", you'd have found it too.

IGNORE the findings please. Never quit exercising, too many benefits to stop. F the researchers and the writer of this article..they did a horrible job talking about the benefits one can still achieve with exercising.

Show me the line where it says "stop exercising because it's pointless"

yeah, well some people die sooner than others, and if you sit all day, according to this study, you're more likely to be one of the "sooners" instead of the "others"

Funnneeeee!!!!! (I mean that!)

again, this study didn't say that sitting all day will make you die earlier... just "more likely". You can sit all day, never exercise, and still live to be over 90, but you're chances are slimmer than someone who is physically active all day.

The study was done in London and published in an American journal. Perhaps your worrying over paying for studies that you aren't actually paying for is what's killing you.