regards

the SIT collective

The point, which may or may not be valid, is demonstrated with the idea that sitting time operates independently from exercise time. Sitting is a thing, not a lack of a thing. If that turns out to be a reasonable way to view sitting, then the comparison you are making between sitting and other activities is a little like comparing, say, smoking and driving as risk factors. Driving less does not make the cigarettes you smoked less harmful; they are different things.

Having said that there obviously is a link between hours of exercise and hours of inactivity, so they can’t be separated entirely. But the point that sitting itself is potentially harmful if done continuously for many hours is a distinct and separate point, possibly.

Even if the relative risk is small, isn’t it still important on a population level, given the massive amount of people with sedentary lifestyles?

So let’s make this simpler to grasp statistically: If you’re 20 you have a roughly 0.05% chance of dying next year. If you increase those 0.05% by 40% you get a chance of 0.07%. Suppose you exercised, keep fit, eat healthy etc. and did the good stuff to avoid typical industrial nation diseases like cardiovascular problems and cancer, you have a say 80% decreased chance of dying next year (number made up).

– Sitting a lot and no exercise: 0.07%
– Not sitting a lot and no exercise: 0.05%
– Sitting a lot and exercising: 0.014%
– Not sitting a lot and exercising: 0.01%

Of course 0.003% sounds a lot less impressive than 40% increase, but then, that doesn’t make headlines…

I’m thankful for the insightfull comments, especially #7: sedentary behaviour as a special research field.