Dementia risk is highest if you sit for longer than 10 hours each day
dailymail.co.uk
dailymail.co.uk
But everyone bought standing desks anyway. So are we now supposed to wait twenty years for the longtidunal studies that find out that, actually, standing might not make much of a difference? (And it gives you some heel-related tendonitis?)
I could bring my treadmill (for desks) to work if it were not for the whirring.
I guess I have no excuses though since I just have to be in front of a screen for ~eight hours a weekday (less than ten). So I just have to not-sit—and perhaps fidget a little for good measure—in my free time.
I guess it should be more socially acceptable to squat instead of sitting on chairs at social gatherings. Good thing that I'm not invited to those things a lot though, what with the long-term senility risks.
This is a very 2008 perspective on health. The article doesn't mention exercise at all but the studies I alluded to with “sitting is the new smoking” outright rejected that exercise counteracted all the negative effects of sedentariness. So exercise was deemed to be no less benefitial compared to before, but it didn't make you “catch up” if you also were sedentary for whatever cutoff they had found.
And indeed the very study (or DailyMail rehashing) that we are talking about wouldn't really make sense under the old exercise-only regime since the general public would have no interest in an article that doesn't even mention whether people got any exercise or at least a brisk walk now and then (like making a distinction between someone who only sits for six hours a day and doesn't exercise contra someone who sits for twelve hours a day and jogs for two hours). But the anti-sitting paradigm has penetrated the public consciousness now (notice standing desks and the ilk). Which is why the DailyMail can make tabloid headlines about it.
You can use those two hours for driving.
- From this meta-analysis: Association between sedentary behavior and the risk of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7174309/)
That on its own could be understandable, but if it's printed in the Daily Mail, then for sure it can't be true...
/s