Less time sitting 'extends life'

"This research only suggests a causal association..."<p>This wipes out the assumptions that most people seem to be making.<p>People who are active sit down less. People who are active have a longer life expectancy. So be active. QED.<p>Nothing about this says that if you change your behaviour by sitting down less, you will live longer. Even TFA acknowledges this.<p>Conclusion: this article tells us nothing new, and nothing that we wouldn't have assumed already.

There seems to be a growing backlash against sitting and I for one am not going to stand for it!<p>Actually, just kidding but couldn't resist. I'm leaving my job (in part) because I can feel the negative effects of sitting for 8hrs a day + ~1.5hrs in the car. At the end of the day I feel stiff, tired, and, not breathless, but definitely reduced lung capacity. I've had a standing desk at home for the past 2 years and I see no reason why I should tolerate worse conditions at work than I have at home.<p>As I mentioned in a comment below, I think standing desks will be the next must-have perk that great companies offer. It will certainly be on my must-have list if I ever return to full-time employment.<p>Edited to add &#62;&#62; even if you exercise, that may not be enough the negate the effects of sitting: <a href="http://mashable.com/2012/04/23/more-you-sit-sooner-die-video/" rel="nofollow">http://mashable.com/2012/04/23/more-you-sit-sooner-die-video...</a> and...<p>"Sitting, it would seem, is an independent pathology. Being sedentary for nine hours a day at the office is bad for your health whether you go home and watch television afterward or hit the gym. It is bad whether you are morbidly obese or marathon-runner thin." -- <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17sitting-t.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17sitting-t.h...</a>

"It is not clear how many of these people were less healthy to begin with and who, therefore, might spend more time sitting down as a result."<p>Next in mass market health news: Eating at McDonalds makes you poorer, and playing basketball makes you taller.

The BBC article touches on this, but the study does not support this conclusion (or any conclusion that could drive public health policy, really). It is lacking any accounting for confounding factors, like physical exercise, diet, health, or income.

"Limiting the time we spend sitting to just three hours a day could add an extra two years to our life expectancy, scientists calculate." -- I guess it's poor article. I think it depends on how much I sit per day, isn't it?<p>On the other hand a agree that people sit too much - they need more doing sports, walking, etc. Together with good diet it makes life not only longer, but happier too.

Some commentaries on this sort of research:<p><a href="http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/04/sitting-time-correlating-with-mortality-independently-of-exercise.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/04/sitting-time-corr...</a><p>This is not the first study to propose this correlation, of course. There are a range of others from past years. One has to wonder what the mechanism is here, however - my suspicion is that it actually does all come back down to the level of physical activity in the end. In these massive studies the level of exercise and activity is reported by the participants. A person who stands and works is going to be somewhat more active than a person who sits and works, even though that time may not be categorized as physical activity, or reported differently.<p>Exercise is much like calorie restriction - the effects are so large in comparison to other factors we have easy access to that they are likely to creep into any study.<p><a href="http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/06/another-study-suggests-that-sedentary-behavior-adds-up.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/06/another-study-sug...</a><p>At some point in the future we won't really have to worry too much about things like this, as medical science will progress to the point at which maintenance of long-term health regardless of lifestyle becomes as much a non-issue as protection from the infectious diseases that plagued our ancestors. But we have a way to go towards that goal, and in the meanwhile it doesn't seem wise to sit back and assume that biotechnology will rescue you from casual negligence. Maybe you'll get lucky, but for those of us in the middle stages of life it looks uncertain indeed. The coming decades are on the cusp between the era of aging as a fact of life and aging as a treatable and reversible medical condition - a lot of deaths will fall on the wrong side of that line, so why not try to shift the odds on whether yours is one of them? Every year gained is big deal in this sort of situation.

Why are the targets unfeasible?

There are a lot of people who do more sitting, they call it relaxing, than 3 hours a day and manage to live very long lives. Physical activity is always good but sitting down is not unhealthy.