Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
8 Hour a Day Office Job, 30 Minutes of Exercise a Day Not Enough
Packerjohn
Posts: 4,855 Member
New study out saying the 30 minutes of moderate exercise recommended per day is not enough if you sit 8 hours in an office/car, etc.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/07/27/study-suggests-new-formula-for-physical-activity-8-hours-of-sitting-means-1-hour-of-exercise/
From the article:
“The current public health recommendations for physical activity are based on very solid evidence and our data support these. … However, if you sit for many hours a day (i.e. > 8 hours) you need to do at least one hour of moderate activity every day to offset the association between sitting time and mortality,” Ekelund wrote."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/07/27/study-suggests-new-formula-for-physical-activity-8-hours-of-sitting-means-1-hour-of-exercise/
From the article:
“The current public health recommendations for physical activity are based on very solid evidence and our data support these. … However, if you sit for many hours a day (i.e. > 8 hours) you need to do at least one hour of moderate activity every day to offset the association between sitting time and mortality,” Ekelund wrote."
3
Replies
-
You should link the study.
What hit me is it doesn't say it has to be vigorous. Living in a city, I find it hard to imagine that people wouldn't naturally be walking around that much, even if you don't do more than a little intentional/vigorous activity, but I know if you drive everywhere you might actually have to schedule it in or change lifestyle some.2 -
I guess it depends on your job? If you truly are sitting for 8 hours a day, then ride home and sit for the rest of the night.... then perhaps they are right? But most people who have "desk jobs" still move around; and then after work, they shop, mow the lawn, haul laundry, etc. An hour of "Moderate activity" is pretty easy to do, IMO?6
-
Well, where I live it's common for a lot of people to have 45-60 minute commutes, and most people either drive to work or take a commuter bus. So for some people with desk jobs, that's 10 hours with potentially little movement.I guess it depends on your job? If you truly are sitting for 8 hours a day, then ride home and sit for the rest of the night.... then perhaps they are right? But most people who have "desk jobs" still move around; and then after work, they shop, mow the lawn, haul laundry, etc. An hour of "Moderate activity" is pretty easy to do, IMO?
I do agree that it shouldn't be that hard to get an hour of exercise in at some point during the day, but I can see how a lot of people could easily end up in trouble if they lead a busy (but not necessarily active) lifestyle outside of work.
3 -
I was going to ask "enough for what" - thanks for answering that in the opening post. Enough to 'undo' the risk factor for early death that sitting a lot is.
(I already knew the current recommendations aren't enough to run a seven minute mile...)
I'll read this when I have time today. I like the image.
I saw an article in Runners World a while ago about how even athletes should be aware of how much time they spend being sedentary, because even with exercise it's still not great. Do you think this works like calories, where exercise can go up against sitting on some kind of balance sheet?0 -
I know you can add another 30 mins to your workout. An hour a day is hardly any sacrifice.3
-
Here's the link to the study:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30370-1/fulltext0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »You should link the study.
What hit me is it doesn't say it has to be vigorous. Living in a city, I find it hard to imagine that people wouldn't naturally be walking around that much, even if you don't do more than a little intentional/vigorous activity, but I know if you drive everywhere you might actually have to schedule it in or change lifestyle some.
This study shows that only about 50% of the population is getting the 30 minutes a day of moderate aerobic activity (the current recommendation). Since it was a phone survey, I would guess the 50% is a bit generous.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6217a2.htm?s_cid=mm6217a2_w
From the study:
The 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans states that aerobic and muscle-strengthening physical activities provide substantial health benefits for adults (1). To assess participation in aerobic physical and muscle-strengthening activities among adults in the United States, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) included new questions in 2011.* CDC analyzed the 2011 BRFSS survey data for U.S. states and the District of Columbia (DC) and found that the self-reported activities of 20.6% of adult respondents met both aerobic and muscle-strengthening guidelines. Among U.S. states and DC, the prevalence of adults meeting both aerobic and muscle-strengthening guidelines ranged from 12.7% to 27.3%. Nationwide, 51.6% of U.S. adults met the aerobic activity guideline, and 29.3% met the muscle-strengthening guideline. State public health officials can use these data to establish new baselines for measuring progress toward meeting the physical activity guidelines.
BRFSS is a state-based, random-digit–dialed telephone survey of the noninstitutionalized U.S. civilian population aged ≥18 years. Data for the 2011 BRFSS survey were collected from 497,967 respondents and reported by the 50 states and DC. Response rates were calculated using standards set by the American Association of Public Opinion Research.† The response rate is the number of respondents who completed the survey as a proportion of all eligible and likely eligible persons. The median survey response rate for combined landline and cellular telephone respondents for all states and DC in 2011 was 49.7% (range: 33.8%–64.1%).
0 -
It's all well and good for them to say this, but if people can't do more, they can't do more, you know.
Usually I can get out during lunch for a healthy walk, but not when it's freezing cold or if it's hotter. Or if it's raining.3 -
I have a very active job where I'm hauling parts, stacking or putting away tires or batteries. I'm constantly on my feet but the actual physical activity is sporadic. So I may get 20 mins then down time for 20 or so minutes. What I'm wondering is it cummulative or does it have to be consecutive? I commute over an hour one way and work 10-12 hours a day and live where lately its hitting 108 or hotter so outside workouts are hard to get in. I'm wondering if what I get at work is enough?0
-
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You should link the study.
What hit me is it doesn't say it has to be vigorous. Living in a city, I find it hard to imagine that people wouldn't naturally be walking around that much, even if you don't do more than a little intentional/vigorous activity, but I know if you drive everywhere you might actually have to schedule it in or change lifestyle some.
This study shows that only about 50% of the population is getting the 30 minutes a day of moderate aerobic activity (the current recommendation). Since it was a phone survey, I would guess the 50% is a bit generous.
I expect that's true, but it seems so strange to me. I'd go nuts, and anyway I have to walk at least that much every day (of course, I exercise in other ways too), and since I'm always in a hurry I walk briskly, especially when it's cold (and walking through lots of newly fallen snow is exercise even if you can't go fast).0 -
In this context, I think the most important thing is to be moving throughout the day. While there may be benefits to doing more than what you're currently doing, if you're constantly getting some movement in while on your feet I think you're in pretty good shape as it is.Crossfitand5ks wrote: »I have a very active job where I'm hauling parts, stacking or putting away tires or batteries. I'm constantly on my feet but the actual physical activity is sporadic. So I may get 20 mins then down time for 20 or so minutes. What I'm wondering is it cummulative or does it have to be consecutive? I commute over an hour one way and work 10-12 hours a day and live where lately its hitting 108 or hotter so outside workouts are hard to get in. I'm wondering if what I get at work is enough?
0 -
Crossfitand5ks wrote: »I have a very active job where I'm hauling parts, stacking or putting away tires or batteries. I'm constantly on my feet but the actual physical activity is sporadic. So I may get 20 mins then down time for 20 or so minutes. What I'm wondering is it cummulative or does it have to be consecutive? I commute over an hour one way and work 10-12 hours a day and live where lately its hitting 108 or hotter so outside workouts are hard to get in. I'm wondering if what I get at work is enough?
I can't access the study itself, but from the link in the first post:Researcher Ulf Ekelund, a professor at the Norwegian School of Sports Sciences, suggested that the one hour of activity could be brisk walking or cycling but said that the exercise doesn’t have to be so rigorous or all at one time. That is, the hour of activity can be spread out over the entire day.
“We did not analyze your data in this way, but all available evidence suggests that the one hour can be done in shorter intervals. My personal opinion is that every single minute of activity counts,” he said in an email.1 -
Crossfitand5ks wrote: »I have a very active job where I'm hauling parts, stacking or putting away tires or batteries. I'm constantly on my feet but the actual physical activity is sporadic. So I may get 20 mins then down time for 20 or so minutes. What I'm wondering is it cummulative or does it have to be consecutive? I commute over an hour one way and work 10-12 hours a day and live where lately its hitting 108 or hotter so outside workouts are hard to get in. I'm wondering if what I get at work is enough?
I believe if you get down in the bowels of the article it saus the activity can be sporadic and you'll still get the benefit.
Sorry didn't see the post above0 -
MostlyWater wrote: »It's all well and good for them to say this, but if people can't do more, they can't do more, you know.
Usually I can get out during lunch for a healthy walk, but not when it's freezing cold or if it's hotter. Or if it's raining.
I saw in another article related to this study, the average American spends 5 non-work hours a day in front of a tube.
Individual results may vary, but on average people can do more but choose not to.5 -
I get an hour train ride into the city and walk to work from there - about a half-hour with traffic and crosswalks. I use Varidesk's timer to remind me to get out of my chair, and walk sometimes at lunch as well then eat at my desk.
So far, I've logged 563 miles this year.
"Can't do more" is a matter of prioritization. My observation has been people who "don't have time" to work out spend inordinate amounts of time doing utterly sedentary activities.5 -
Clearly Ekelund doesn't have two jobs like I do. You do what you can, and that will have to do, because you also have to eat and sleep and clean the house. If it isn't "enough" then *raspberry* IDGAF.11
-
BodyzLanguage wrote: »I know you can add another 30 mins to your workout. An hour a day is hardly any sacrifice.
Hardly any sacrifice FOR YOU. For many people, time is in shorter supply even than money, and you can't get more hours out of the day.5 -
Crossfitand5ks wrote: »I have a very active job where I'm hauling parts, stacking or putting away tires or batteries. I'm constantly on my feet but the actual physical activity is sporadic. So I may get 20 mins then down time for 20 or so minutes. What I'm wondering is it cummulative or does it have to be consecutive? I commute over an hour one way and work 10-12 hours a day and live where lately its hitting 108 or hotter so outside workouts are hard to get in. I'm wondering if what I get at work is enough?
The sedentary dangers flagged in this article are for people who are sitting on their butts for 8 hours a day or longer. It sounds like you are already way ahead of the curve with activity built into your job.0 -
BodyzLanguage wrote: »I know you can add another 30 mins to your workout. An hour a day is hardly any sacrifice.
Hardly any sacrifice FOR YOU. For many people, time is in shorter supply even than money, and you can't get more hours out of the day.
As mentioned earlier, the average American spends 5 leisure hours a day in front of a tube. This would indicate to me that most would have time to get an hour of movement a day if that was their choice.4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »BodyzLanguage wrote: »I know you can add another 30 mins to your workout. An hour a day is hardly any sacrifice.
Hardly any sacrifice FOR YOU. For many people, time is in shorter supply even than money, and you can't get more hours out of the day.
As mentioned earlier, the average American spends 5 leisure hours a day in front of a tube. This would indicate to me that most would have time to get an hour of movement a day if that was their choice.
For those people, perhaps, an hour would not be a sacrifice, but I'm not really talking about those people. The poster I quoted did not specify "average" Americans spending 5 hours a day in front of the TV (there's also the fact that you can watch TV while doing a multitude of other things, which is what I do). He just made the unqualified statement that an hour a day is hardly a sacrifice. See Gothchiq's reference above about working two jobs and still has to come home and clean - if a person spends 12 hours working, 2 hours commuting, and 2 hours cleaning/cooking/caring for and interacting with spouse and/or children, that leaves exactly 8 hours to sleep before they have to get up and do it all again. Should they take an hour out of their sleep, or be late to work and maybe lose their job, or quit one job and not be able to pay the bills, or let the house go to hell, or ignore their spouse/kids, or what? Everyone does not have the same life. I'm so fortunate to be in a position where I have the free time to do yoga and take lots of walks but I wasn't always in that position, and I think everyone who has that free time maybe ought to just be thankful for it instead of dogging other people who don't.13 -
the time spent cleaning is Gothchics hour of activity.4
-
Packerjohn wrote: »BodyzLanguage wrote: »I know you can add another 30 mins to your workout. An hour a day is hardly any sacrifice.
Hardly any sacrifice FOR YOU. For many people, time is in shorter supply even than money, and you can't get more hours out of the day.
As mentioned earlier, the average American spends 5 leisure hours a day in front of a tube. This would indicate to me that most would have time to get an hour of movement a day if that was their choice.
For those people, perhaps, an hour would not be a sacrifice, but I'm not really talking about those people. The poster I quoted did not specify "average" Americans spending 5 hours a day in front of the TV (there's also the fact that you can watch TV while doing a multitude of other things, which is what I do). He just made the unqualified statement that an hour a day is hardly a sacrifice. See Gothchiq's reference above about working two jobs and still has to come home and clean - if a person spends 12 hours working, 2 hours commuting, and 2 hours cleaning/cooking/caring for and interacting with spouse and/or children, that leaves exactly 8 hours to sleep before they have to get up and do it all again. Should they take an hour out of their sleep, or be late to work and maybe lose their job, or quit one job and not be able to pay the bills, or let the house go to hell, or ignore their spouse/kids, or what? Everyone does not have the same life. I'm so fortunate to be in a position where I have the free time to do yoga and take lots of walks but I wasn't always in that position, and I think everyone who has that free time maybe ought to just be thankful for it instead of dogging other people who don't.
Wasn't referring to you or any other poster in this thread. Studies show people in general arespending a lot of time in front of a tube but claim not to have time for exercise1 -
I guess 30 minutes a day is better than nothing, but my honest opinion.. I don't think it's enough to make much of a difference2
-
Sometimes one needs to make time.2
-
Christine_72 wrote: »I guess 30 minutes a day is better than nothing, but my honest opinion.. I don't think it's enough to make much of a difference
The study is saying 60 minutes if you sit 8 hours a day.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »BodyzLanguage wrote: »I know you can add another 30 mins to your workout. An hour a day is hardly any sacrifice.
Hardly any sacrifice FOR YOU. For many people, time is in shorter supply even than money, and you can't get more hours out of the day.
As mentioned earlier, the average American spends 5 leisure hours a day in front of a tube. This would indicate to me that most would have time to get an hour of movement a day if that was their choice.
For those people, perhaps, an hour would not be a sacrifice, but I'm not really talking about those people. The poster I quoted did not specify "average" Americans spending 5 hours a day in front of the TV (there's also the fact that you can watch TV while doing a multitude of other things, which is what I do). He just made the unqualified statement that an hour a day is hardly a sacrifice. See Gothchiq's reference above about working two jobs and still has to come home and clean - if a person spends 12 hours working, 2 hours commuting, and 2 hours cleaning/cooking/caring for and interacting with spouse and/or children, that leaves exactly 8 hours to sleep before they have to get up and do it all again. Should they take an hour out of their sleep, or be late to work and maybe lose their job, or quit one job and not be able to pay the bills, or let the house go to hell, or ignore their spouse/kids, or what? Everyone does not have the same life. I'm so fortunate to be in a position where I have the free time to do yoga and take lots of walks but I wasn't always in that position, and I think everyone who has that free time maybe ought to just be thankful for it instead of dogging other people who don't.
Wasn't referring to you or any other poster in this thread. Studies show people in general arespending a lot of time in front of a tube but claim not to have time for exercise
Nope, not about me or anyone else. Guess I wasn't very good at making it generic.
I just feel like a lot of people get accused of making excuses when they're going flat out like a lizard already and really can't do more. 4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »BodyzLanguage wrote: »I know you can add another 30 mins to your workout. An hour a day is hardly any sacrifice.
Hardly any sacrifice FOR YOU. For many people, time is in shorter supply even than money, and you can't get more hours out of the day.
As mentioned earlier, the average American spends 5 leisure hours a day in front of a tube. This would indicate to me that most would have time to get an hour of movement a day if that was their choice.
For those people, perhaps, an hour would not be a sacrifice, but I'm not really talking about those people. The poster I quoted did not specify "average" Americans spending 5 hours a day in front of the TV (there's also the fact that you can watch TV while doing a multitude of other things, which is what I do). He just made the unqualified statement that an hour a day is hardly a sacrifice. See Gothchiq's reference above about working two jobs and still has to come home and clean - if a person spends 12 hours working, 2 hours commuting, and 2 hours cleaning/cooking/caring for and interacting with spouse and/or children, that leaves exactly 8 hours to sleep before they have to get up and do it all again. Should they take an hour out of their sleep, or be late to work and maybe lose their job, or quit one job and not be able to pay the bills, or let the house go to hell, or ignore their spouse/kids, or what? Everyone does not have the same life. I'm so fortunate to be in a position where I have the free time to do yoga and take lots of walks but I wasn't always in that position, and I think everyone who has that free time maybe ought to just be thankful for it instead of dogging other people who don't.
Wasn't referring to you or any other poster in this thread. Studies show people in general arespending a lot of time in front of a tube but claim not to have time for exercise
While I would agree that many people can free up time for more exercise, spending time in front of the TV doesn't necessarily mean doing nothing except watching TV. I watch TV while I get ready for work in the morning, while I prepare and eat dinner, while I fold laundry, etc. I doubt I'm the only one who does this and these are things that need doing.5 -
BodyzLanguage wrote: »I know you can add another 30 mins to your workout. An hour a day is hardly any sacrifice.
Hardly any sacrifice FOR YOU. For many people, time is in shorter supply even than money, and you can't get more hours out of the day.
Alright easy, why do sound like you wanna bite my head off? Lol, geez. To elaborate on my point, if one is engaged in higher ranked actives throughout the other 23 hours 30 mins of the day then yeah, 1 hour is too much - which highly unlikely. But priories are priorities. Just make peace with exercising not being a priority. Don't delude yourself.3 -
CipherZero wrote: »I get an hour train ride into the city and walk to work from there - about a half-hour with traffic and crosswalks. I use Varidesk's timer to remind me to get out of my chair, and walk sometimes at lunch as well then eat at my desk.
So far, I've logged 563 miles this year.
"Can't do more" is a matter of prioritization. My observation has been people who "don't have time" to work out spend inordinate amounts of time doing utterly sedentary activities.
This is a big part of the problem, and is often bandied about as an excuse for why people eat like *kitten* as well. I should know; I used to use it all of the time. And yeah, it was nothing more than an excuse then too, even working 14 hours per day.0 -
There has been a lot of interest in this in recent years. However, many studies say that no amount of additional exercise can offset the damaging impact of sitting for extended periods because this isn't a matter of just trying to outrun sedentary habits. There is obviously a calories in vs. calories out argument to sitting too much, but there is also an argument that sitting for prolonged periods is bad for you in other ways. It's a bit like saying somebody in solitary confinement for a year, will be totally OK after a 2-day chat with a friend. The idea is (and I am no scientist, so am not arguing for or against) is that sitting down for long periods of times is damaging IN ITSELF and has poor impact on the way the body metabolises energy as well as forces the body to unnaturally hold unnatural positions. It's like subjecting yourself to stress positions as done in torture and interrogations, wreaking havoc on muscles! In this respect, many offices are now encouraging standing desks (where you can heighten your desk and stand at it for the majority of the day rather than sit). Other options are to stand up every time you're taking a telephone call (it makes you sound more assertive too BTW) or maybe everytime you need to read something in hard copy. Depending on your job - try to find habitual things that are easy to do while standing and then become ONLY things you do standing. Point is that being less sedentary is one thing and can be offset by more exercise later. However, regardless of the amount of exercise you do later, it doesn't offset the OTHER damaging effects of sitting for long periods without a break.
On that note - I am going to get up from my desk and make myself a cup of tea. A brief "stretch of my legs" will do me the world of good!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/sitting-too-long-death_n_884152.html
PS and by the way - just because people sit for long periods of time - doesn't mean they are "lazy". I used to work 14-15 hour days in a high pressure job where I was literally GLUED to my computer screen for the entire day and barely even stopped for lunch, if at all. Ironically I was at my skinniest then, as I didn't eat and was so stressed, the weight fell off. I wasn't healthy though!!
3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions