Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Fri, Aug-18-17, 07:27
doreen T's Avatar
doreen T doreen T is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 35,235
 
Plan: DANDR '92
Stats: 236/186/140 Female 165 cm
BF:
Progress: 52%
Location: Eastern ON, Canada
Default Prolonged standing is worse than sitting, study finds it's time to move

CBC News Posted: Aug 18, 2017 5:52 AM ET

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/stand...-move-1.4252006

Quote:
People who stand 4 to 5 hours a day have higher risk of heart disease, research shows


People who stand for long periods at work may have another reason to join their seated colleagues in moving more.

When researchers followed 7,300 Ontario workers aged 35 to 74 who were free of heart disease, they found the risk of heart disease was higher among those whose job titles involve mainly standing compared with those who mainly sit.

"There's a good body of research evidence that shows standing a lot, it's actually bad for your health," said Peter Smith, a senior scientist at the Institute for Work & Health and an associate professor at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto.

"There are things like blood pooling in your legs, the venous return, the pressure on your body to pump blood back up to your heart from your legs, and that can increase your oxidated stress which can increase your risk of heart disease."

The occupations that involved prolonged standing included cashiers, chefs and machine tool operators who stand for four or five hours at a time, said Smith and his team of researchers from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.

About nine per cent of the subjects in the 12-year study mainly stood at work when the study began compared with 37 per cent who were estimated to sit most of the time.

They responded to the 2003 Canadian Community Health Survey by answering questions about their age, education level, ethnicity, chronic health conditions, height and weight, shift schedule and smoking, drinking and amount of leisure physical activity.

Limitations of the study included the self-reported measures, one-time answers and a lack of objective checks of standing and sitting time.

"If you allow people who stand a lot the opportunity to sit and give those breaks of sitting and standing throughout the day, you would probably do a lot to decrease your risk of cardiovascular disease," Smith suggested.


'Solution to sitting may not be standing'

In general, being sedentary or sitting too much is bad for health, Smith said, adding the jury is out on the long-term health effects of prolonged sitting at work.

"The solution to sitting may not be standing," said Dr. David Alter, a cardiologist and a senior scientist at the University Health Network's Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, who was not involved in the study.

"The solution to sitting may be movement. Insofar that the study sheds light on that, I think it contributes to our knowledge."

Alter advises people to track how long they're seated and to try to vary their position every 30 minutes.

Since physical activity seems to counterbalance the bad effects of not moving to some degree, Alter encourages adults to get 150 to 300 minutes a week of moderate to vigorous physical activity. That's a pace that causes you to sweat a bit and raises your heart rate.


The news release from ICES (who conducted the research) states:
Quote:
Even after adjusting for a wide range of factors; personal (e.g. age, gender, education levels, ethnicity, immigrant status, marital status), health conditions (e.g. diabetes, arthritis, hypertension, mood and anxiety disorders), health behaviour (e.g. smoking, drinking, body mass index, exercise) and work (e.g. physical demands, shift schedule); the risk of heart disease was still twice as high among people who primarily stood on the job compared to those who primarily sat. In fact, the unadjusted risk of heart disease among people who stood on the job (6.6 per cent, as mentioned above) was even slightly higher than among daily smokers (5.8 per cent).

https://www.ices.on.ca/Newsroom/New...olonged-sitting


So .. sitting is bad, standing even worse .. maybe we should just stay in bed
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Fri, Aug-18-17, 07:40
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,877
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/162/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: USA
Default

Hemingway wrote at a standup desk. It's good for pacing!

Still, conventional sitting is very hard on the lower back. Good posture is key. I write reclined, with a lap desk, which is better.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Fri, Aug-18-17, 08:34
PaCarolSue PaCarolSue is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 271
 
Plan: Whatever Works
Stats: 217/200.5/199 Female 5ft 2 inches
BF:lots/lots/less
Progress: 92%
Location: USA
Default

At my last job before retiring, they changed our workstations from sitting to standing. They claimed that it was proven to improve productivity. It did not. We were constantly complaining of back pain, leg pain, foot pain. We were taking more breaks to walk around a bit to loosen things up. After about 8 months they lowered the workstations and brought back the chairs.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Fri, Aug-18-17, 09:12
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,775
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Fads based on pseudo data, what are you going to do??? If they recommend hanging upside down by the ankles, that's when I'll draw the line . . . .
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Fri, Aug-18-17, 10:22
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,206
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
"There are things like blood pooling in your legs, the venous return, the pressure on your body to pump blood back up to your heart from your legs, and that can increase your oxidated stress which can increase your risk of heart disease."

Doesn't make sense. Oxidative (above - oxidated, it's probably a mistake) stress means oxidation. If less blood (flow), then less oxygen, then less oxidation. Furthermore, oxidation is our primary means of doing stuff, therefore it cannot be deemed to be a primary culprit. Instead, it's more likely that damage occurs when there is not enough oxygen, i.e. HbA1c is high, therefore oxygen transport/supply is low.

The principle here is probably overabundance of stuff that normally gets oxidized. Imagine a chain of chemical reactions. If one link fails, another link - not normally there - takes over and branches out to form a different chain of reactions from that point, with a different and unanticipated outcome. Conversely, when there is ample oxygen, the chain continues normally, with the expected outcome. On the third hand, if there is too much oxigen, the chain is less likely to diverge because here it's more of the same rather than a deficiency, and the systems that deal with the normal outcomes already have the means to deal with it. Indeed, it's likely that more oxygen is actually beneficial to some degree, as we can see with high-level athletes who dope themselves with their own red blood cells before competition, or with a hyperbaric chamber in the off-season to improve their recuperative capacity. If oxidative stress was really detrimental, their performance wouldn't improve, instead they'd die young of old age. So basically, the term oxidative stress is a misnomer, probably due to misunderstanding that we have lungs.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, Aug-18-17, 12:30
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,044
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Oxidation is sort of a misleading term--the first form of oxidation that was discovered involved oxygen accepting an electron, but other similar processes were also found involving other elements etc. taking on electrons.

Quote:
Oxidation is the loss of electrons or an increase in oxidation state by a molecule, atom, or ion.


Wikipedia. Lol at "an increase in oxidation state" as some sort of meaningful definition of oxidation.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Fri, Aug-18-17, 12:41
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,044
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
Even after adjusting for a wide range of factors; personal (e.g. age, gender, education levels, ethnicity, immigrant status, marital status), health conditions (e.g. diabetes, arthritis, hypertension, mood and anxiety disorders), health behaviour (e.g. smoking, drinking, body mass index, exercise) and work (e.g. physical demands, shift schedule)




I remember years ago there was a study posted on the forum where high intake of omega 6 fatty acids was associated with 6 times as much glaucoma as low intake was. After adjustments for confounding variables. 6 times--but before adjustment, they had very little "effect.' Adjusting for more variables doesn't give you better data, it just smears some vasoline on the lens, lowers resolution. These people are frankly delusional that this is any sort of way to figure anything out.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Fri, Aug-18-17, 18:25
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,206
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
Oxidation is sort of a misleading term--the first form of oxidation that was discovered involved oxygen accepting an electron, but other similar processes were also found involving other elements etc. taking on electrons.



Wikipedia. Lol at "an increase in oxidation state" as some sort of meaningful definition of oxidation.

Yeah, nobody can explain it so we understand. I got an easy way. To oxidize is to bind oxygen with (something). See a famous example: carbon dioxide. It's the stuff we expel when we exhale. See another famous example: rust.

The term "oxidative" means it can easily bind to oxygen. This should give us a hint as to what should normally happen - it should bind to oxygen, but it doesn't, cuz there ain't any, so it binds to other stuff and that's a bad thing. If there was oxygen, it wouldn't be bad, cuz that's what oxygen is for - to bind to stuff in a normal way. We got lungs, see?

I wanted to say "but we don't rust, we metabolize", but then I read what "metabolize" means, and I decided that "to rust" is exactly what we do, and that's how we extract energy from the oxygen we breathe. Imagine if we were adapted to breathe hydrogen instead, then we'd hydrogenate, not oxidize, ya?

Anyways, the whole idea about oxidative stress leads us to conclude that oxygen is a bad guy, but we only need to hold our breath for a minute or two to realize the obvious BS. If there was a bad guy to blame, oxygen ain't it, there must be some other guy doing the deed in some different way. Let's see. We go low-carb, then everything improves. Well, we go high-carb, then everything goes worse. Must be the carbs. So, the stuff we blame on oxygen, I think we should blame it on glucose and other -oses instead.

Think of it this way. We got thousands of mitochondria for the unique purpose of oxidation, but only one cell nucleus where fermentation occurs. Without oxygen, it's fermentation, therefore any condition that reduces oxygen supply must be blamed on that, not on oxygen. I even think that there's so many mitochondria precisely for the purpose of taking care of the fermentation by-products cuz they're really bad for an oxidative organism. Do some HIIT, mitochondria increases in number, everything gets better (Hm, that's what happens too when we go low-carb, I wonder). Oxygen = good.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Fri, Aug-18-17, 22:00
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,775
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

The more I reread the article, the more I think that senior scientist Peter Smith is making up stuff. It's nice to debate the hypothetical, but it makes zero sense in this context and is not even worth pursuing. Attempting an interpretation presumes some definitive factual basis. So, all those progressive companies that have provided stand-up desks now must realize that they are decreasing the time-to-grave for their employees. What's next, desk treadmills or a walking track or dancing breaks with piped in music??? I'm definitely in the wrong business . . .
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Fri, Aug-18-17, 22:55
Meme#1's Avatar
Meme#1 Meme#1 is offline
Posts: 7,569
 
Plan: Atkins DANDR
Stats: 210/183/160 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 54%
Location: Texas
Default

In France, the labor laws require a cashier to have a stool to sit on. It should be like that everywhere!
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Sat, Aug-19-17, 03:55
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Posts: 2,976
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/122/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 112%
Location: Vermont
Default

I have my Imac raised so that I can stand when using it. Prolonged sitting hurts my back. I do find that I have to move when standing at the computer, shifting my weight frequently to keep from stiffening up. I've even been thinking of getting one of those balance boards designed for the purpose. I think sedentary for too long is the issue whether standing still or sitting still. As we all know the one size fits all prescription doesn't work. At the very least it is not too helpful to tell people that both sitting and standing are bad for your health. We can't all go back to the savannah and spend our days hunting big game.

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Sat, Aug-19-17, 08:52
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,877
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/162/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: USA
Default

I used to sit on an exercise ball. Best of both worlds.

Don't have the room now... or the privacy. Because I used to "dance" along with my music.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Sat, Aug-19-17, 15:56
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,246
 
Plan: Paleoish
Stats: 225/175/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 100%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

I guess that the only healthy position is laying down.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Sat, Aug-19-17, 17:21
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,987
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/160/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 53%
Location: NE WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cotonpal
I think sedentary for too long is the issue whether standing still or sitting still.


Just what I was thinking. If I sit for too long my legs hurt; if I stand still for too long my hip hurts. Walking helps both, so I try to remember to move.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Sun, Aug-20-17, 02:43
Elizellen's Avatar
Elizellen Elizellen is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,733
 
Plan: Atkins (DANDR)
Stats: 290/141/130 Female 65.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 93%
Location: Bournemouth (UK)
Default

I remember a few years ago reading a recommendation to use an exercise ball instead of a chair.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:31.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.