original abstract†Abstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.
BACKGROUND: Current estimates from objective accelerometer data suggest that American adults are sedentary for ∼7.7 h/day. Historically, sedentary behaviour was conceptualized as one end of the physical activity spectrum but is increasingly being viewed as a behaviour distinct from physical activity.
METHODS: Prospective studies examining the associations between screen time (watching television, watching videos and using a computer) and sitting time and fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) were identified. These prospective studies relied on self-reported sedentary behaviour.
RESULTS: The majority of prospective studies of screen time and sitting time has shown that greater sedentary time is associated with an increased risk of fatal and non-fatal CVD. Compared with the lowest levels of sedentary time, risk estimates ranged up to 1.68 for the highest level of sitting time and 2.25 for the highest level of screen time after adjustment for a series of covariates, including measures of physical activity. For six studies of screen time and CVD, the summary hazard ratio per 2-h increase was 1.17 (95% CI: 1.13-1.20). For two studies of sitting time, the summary hazard ratio per 2-h increase was 1.05 (95% CI: 1.01-1.09).
CONCLUSIONS: Future prospective studies using more objective measures of sedentary behaviour might prove helpful in quantifying better the risk between sedentary behaviour and CVD morbidity and mortality. This budding science may better shape future guideline development as well as clinical and public health interventions to reduce the amount of sedentary behaviour in modern societies.
One article on PainScience.com cites Ford 2012 as a source:
- PS The Trouble with Chairs — The science of being sedentary and how much it does (or doesn’t) affect your health and back pain
This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights:
- A Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis of the power pose effect with informed and default priors: the case of felt power. Gronau 2017 Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology.
- Agreement of self-reported items and clinically assessed nerve root involvement (or sciatica) in a primary care setting. Konstantinou 2012 Eur Spine J.
- Effect of NSAIDs on Recovery From Acute Skeletal Muscle Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Morelli 2017 Am J Sports Med.
- Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Clinical Benefit and Harm for Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Paige 2017 JAMA.
- Incidence of Spontaneous Resorption of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis. Zhong 2017 Pain Physician.