Prolonged TV Viewing Linked To Higher Risk Of Death Even In Regular Exercisers

[HuckleB]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/175656.php

"Researchers in Australia found that prolonged television viewing was linked to an increased risk of death, even in people who exercised regularly, and recommended more be done to encourage people to spend fewer hours sitting still in front of the TV.

The study, which appeared online on 11 January in the journal Circulation, is the work of lead author Dr David Dunstan, a researcher at the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute in Melbourne, and colleagues.

The researchers wrote that studies have been done on television viewing time and health, but these have focused on links with cardiovascular risk, and not risk of death. So for this study they investigated the link between prolonged television viewing time and all-cause, cardiovascular, cancer and non- cardiovascular/non-cancer mortality in Australian adults.

One of the surprising things they found was that even for people who exercised regularly, the risk of death went up the longer they spent in front of the TV: they suggest the problem was the prolonged periods of sitting still.

..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting stuff that will hopefully lead to some follow-up work that looks at sedentary work in relation to health, as well.

Cheers!

[Brickbat]

1. Risk of death is 100%.

Send it back to the reporter for rewrite. Death within five years? Ten years? Premature death? Death in front of the TV?

[HuckleB]

2. So you have no actual response.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Brickbat]

5. It's hard to respond to something that isn't clear.

[HuckleB]

8. Try reading.

[Brickbat]

11. Oh, it gets there eventually.

Too bad it's not in the lede. Bad journalism and bad writing doesn't help anybody. I know it's hard to find a decent science reporter who can distill a study into something that makes sense instead of turning a peer-reviewed double-blind study into junk science, but I'm still annoyed when I see writing like this.

[HuckleB]

12. Your failure to read is not the journalist's fault.

[Brickbat]

14. But the failure to be clear is the journalist's fault.

Reporters know they need to put the most important information in the lede. "Risk of death" means nothing, and it would have taken very little effort to say "risk of death from..." or "risk of death within..." If I read a lede that talks about "risk of death" and nothing else, I assume the reporter is a dumbass and the editor was sleeping. Which, you know, isn't good for journalism or science.

[HuckleB]

15. The story is quite clear.

You chose to respond to a headline. Take responsibility for your own foibles.

[Brickbat]

16. Everything you quoted in your OP says "risk of death."

And now I'm done. This is stupid.

[HuckleB]

18. You're initial response was stupid, yes.

I called you on it. You don't seem to be capable of self-assessment.

[frazzled]

6. Heh, that's what my husband remarked when he read it in the paper this morning

Our newspaper deliverer screwed up once again: instead of getting the NY Times, she gave us a Wall Street Journal.

My husband read the headline "Watching TV linked to HIgher Risk of Death" and remarked, don't we all have a 100% risk of death?

[HuckleB]

9. It's an old cliche.

It's sort of fills the space verbally, like an "uh" or an "umm."

[frazzled]

17. Here's another cliche

Lighten up. Go watch some TV.

Yet another cliche: correlations do not suggest a causation.

My father has watched a lot of tv his whole life. He's 93. He does exercise a lot, too.
The life expectancy of persons in cultures where there is no tv or electricity even is very very low.

[HuckleB]

19. In other words, you choose to live life be the anecdote.

Not only that, you have yet to read the piece.

I'm tired of dufuses offering up old cliches as a supposedly humorous way of ignoring science.

[frazzled]

23. The study says you're risking your help by typing a response to me

Dunstan said their study findings are probably also valid for other sedentary activities such as sitting in front of a computer, reading a book, driving, or sitting on a bus or train.

I've had plenty of moving around today, thank you very much--I did four loads of laundry, carrying them up and down a flight of stairs, I walked six blocks in the cold to the market to buy vegetables, I just spent the last hour on my feet mincing, dicing, and grating vegetables to make a vegetarian almond-millet loaf.

But I also sat at my computer (I am an editor, so I have to do my work), and the tv was on for a total of 40 minutes, during which time I was probably sitting only 15 or 20 minutes.

I may watch a movie tonight. Got a problem with that?

By the way, it's spelled "doofus," not "dufus."

Thousands of these studies come out every day. Tomorrow, we will have the study that contradicts this study. I have no problem with the broad statement that sitting around for 6 hours a day watching television is not good for your health. That's just plain common sense. I do have problems with this endless array of "increased risk" studies. Usually the increase is not enough for people to throw their tvs out the window. If my risk of dying of cancer is 6 percent, then raising it 46% makes my chances less than 9%, still a very low risk.

But knock yourself out. Though, I can tell from the very tense anger in your posts, that you may need to chill out a little bit. I can't even begin to tell you how much the risk of anger and fear increases your risk of death.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. What if you spend 5 hours a day excercising along with "The Fitness Channel"?

Does that count?

[HuckleB]

4. The study seems to cover that.

It's the lack of movement that is the probable issue.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. So turning the TV off while I spend 6 hours a night on my computer

won't help.

Ah, well.

[trotsky]

7. No problem.

I'm getting up frequently to pee and get another beer. No sitting still for me. :)

[HuckleB]

10. A fine strategy!

:hi:

[happy_liberal]

20. teh stoopid- it kills

Is it possible it is not the sedentary aspect but what is being fed into people's brains?

[Tutankhamun]

21. There was nothing wrong with the lede or the rest of the story.

I've written news articles for several papers, and that was a pretty good lede. It sucked us all in and delivered the critical info required. The story was organized and written correctly too.

[HuckleB]

22. Wow!

So maybe I'm not crazy.

[L0oniX]

24. Would that be from CRT, LCD, LED or plasma?

My guess ...CRT's ...since a little modification of them can turn them into an xray machine somewhat.