Hacker News Reader

Comment by mewse | Hacker News Reader

Though the headline does not say so, I presume that this 'toll' is only contributed to by the prolonged sitting; the "binge TV-viewing" presumably is only harmful to "ability to walk" inasmuch as it is correlated with an increased amount of prolonged sitting.

One assumes that binge tv-viewing would take no toll on ability to walk (or even be beneficial to it) if one was walking on a treadmill whilst watching television?

View on HN

Reading a book is probably just as harmful to your ability to walk.

Books have the benefit that they are usually not fixed in place. When I read, I tend to change my posture quite a lot.

Of course you can get similar mobility watching videos on a tablet/smart phone.

TV has the same if not better benefit - it's probably just less frequently utilized. I'm sure I watch more TV than the average American (which is saying a lot) with a screen in all of the major rooms in my apartment. But 50-75% of the time that I'm watching, I'm cleaning, preparing meals, etc.

It depends on what folks are binge watching. My only gripe with living in the 'Golden Age of Television' is that the shows are too good, contain too much depth, and warrant 100% attention to lest you miss its subtleties.

Probably not. Books are not hypnotic to the same extend as multimedia or interactive media.

I beg to differ. I've been far more addicted to a good page turner book than I've ever been addicted to a TV show. And when I finally put the book down 10hrs later I can barely focus on anything further away than 20-30cm. With TV I can also do other things not give it my full attention by checking email or browsing the web but I can't do that with a book

I really envy your ability to get hypnotized by a book, and I've heard others have similar binge reading sessions quite frequently. I love reading. I read every morning and night, but I can only read for about an hour at a time. I do read mainly non-fiction, and I'm wondering if that has anything to do with it. However, I'm drawn towards non-fiction more, so wouldn't I prefer longer reading sessions for the books I'm interested in the most?

My n=1 data point.

I read non-fiction and fiction books in similar amounts, but only the latter trigger binge sessions for me. With non-fiction, my brain usually gets tired after an hour or so, and I feel an urge to take a break. But with good fiction books, I frequently ended up reading an entire series of books over a week, with the only breaks being sleep, food prep, hygiene and the dayjob. Those sessions were more intense than binging TV series, which is something I am prone to do too.

I enjoy both quite a bit, and I wouldn't find it implausible that it's easier to get lost in fiction than nonfiction, even if you prefer the latter. I feel like when I read nonfiction, I generally like time away from the book to digest it, compare the new models I'm forming with existing ones that I have, integrate external information into the stuff I'm learning about (e.g. by Googling or talking to friends).

With certain kinds of fiction, I'm much more able to get completely lost in the world created to the point that I lose track of what's going on around me.

Fiction is magical. I've been so lost in a good story that a couple hours pass by without my noticing.

Try it!

Have you had your eyes checked? I've had trouble concentrating when my eyes are straining.

Maybe it's because you did not find any enjoyable book then. A good book is hard to give up.

Books can be more hypnotic.

I haven't read the full text to see how they parse it out in either the rationale or the analysis, but it might be related to the fact that a lot of studies on the effects of sitting actually use data about TV watching. This study might have asked about them separately to gauge the correlation between the two, or just to provide a basis for direct comparison to the TV-based studies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com