Does Sitting Less Influence Obesity? Insights from a 2005 Science Study

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moonbear
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Science
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a study published in Science that examines the relationship between posture allocation and obesity. The research indicates that obese individuals tend to sit for an average of two hours longer each day compared to their lean counterparts, suggesting that posture and movement play a significant role in energy expenditure. This phenomenon, referred to as nonexercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT), implies that if obese individuals adopted the more active postures of lean individuals, they could potentially burn an additional 350 calories per day. Participants in the study did not alter their posture allocation with weight changes, indicating a biological basis for these behaviors. The conversation also critiques the journal's decision to publish what some view as a simplistic conclusion, questioning the quality of the research and its implications. Overall, the thread highlights a mix of humor and skepticism regarding the findings and the publication process.
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
11,919
Reaction score
54
I considered posting this in biology, but think this needs broader dissemination, having appeared in Science and all. I've been saying this for years, but never realized I could get published in Science for it! :eek: I'm seriously questioning the quality of that journal to consider this cutting edge research. (No, this isn't a joke.)

Science, Vol 307, Issue 5709, 584-586 , 28 January 2005
Interindividual Variation in Posture Allocation: Possible Role in Human Obesity
James A. Levine,* Lorraine M. Lanningham-Foster, Shelly K. McCrady, Alisa C. Krizan, Leslie R. Olson, Paul H. Kane, Michael D. Jensen, Matthew M. Clark

Obesity occurs when energy intake exceeds energy expenditure. Humans expend energy through purposeful exercise and through changes in posture and movement that are associated with the routines of daily life [called nonexercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT)]. To examine NEAT's role in obesity, we recruited 10 lean and 10 mildly obese sedentary volunteers and measured their body postures and movements every half-second for 10 days. Obese individuals were seated, on average, 2 hours longer per day than lean individuals. Posture allocation did not change when the obese individuals lost weight or when lean individuals gained weight, suggesting that it is biologically determined. If obese individuals adopted the NEAT-enhanced behaviors of their lean counterparts, they might expend an additional 350 calories (kcal) per day.

Full article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5709/584

So, there you have it, according to Science, lean people don't sit on their butt as much as obese people. I'm sure you're all relieved to know it's no longer idle speculation, and the official results are in. :biggrin:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ARE YOU SAYING I'M FAT?:cry:
 
polyb said:
ARE YOU SAYING I'M FAT?:cry:

Only on tuesdays.

Oh...
 
Moonbear said:
I considered posting this in biology, but think this needs broader dissemination, having appeared in Science and all. I've been saying this for years, but never realized I could get published in Science for it! :eek: I'm seriously questioning the quality of that journal to consider this cutting edge research. (No, this isn't a joke.)

Science, Vol 307, Issue 5709, 584-586 , 28 January 2005


Full article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5709/584

So, there you have it, according to Science, lean people don't sit on their butt as much as obese people. I'm sure you're all relieved to know it's no longer idle speculation, and the official results are in. :biggrin:
It says I don't have access to the article.

Moonbear said:
(per article)Obesity occurs when energy intake exceeds energy expenditure
Slaps herself on the forehead. And to think all these years I thought that consuming more calories than I burn was the way to lose weight! Thank goodness for this article! :biggrin:
 
franznietzsche said:
Only on tuesdays.

Oh...

groan. Besides, that's only next Tuesday, right? Am I on the right week here?
 
Moonbear said:
groan. Besides, that's only next Tuesday, right? Am I on the right week here?

I'm still running on Monday as far as I'm concerned.
 
Evo said:
It says I don't have access to the article.

Sorry Evo. Pretty much every library carries Science, so if you really want to read the whole article, it'll be pretty easy to get your hands on a copy. I read it, thinking there surely must be something more technical about it, some metabolism measurements, etc. But, nope, you can pretty much get the gist from the abstract.

Slaps herself on the head. And to think all these years I thought that consuming more calories than I burn was the way to lose weight! Thank goodness for this article! :biggrin:

I want to know which or how many of the authors slept with the editor to get that one through. Or was it that one of them knows the editor slept with his best friend's wife? Or... Okay, maybe now I'm just guessing. :smile:
 
franznietzsche said:
I'm still running on Monday as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, right, it's not a new day if you don't go to sleep. Does this help you stay younger?
 
Moonbear said:
groan. Besides, that's only next Tuesday, right? Am I on the right week here?

Burned out a week before ash wednesday, I think I am beginning to understand the sisterhood!

I was thinking about giving up lint, will that be kosher? :smile:
 
  • #10
Moonbear said:
Oh, right, it's not a new day if you don't go to sleep. Does this help you stay younger?

No, you live half as many days, so technically you age twice as fast.
 
  • #11
polyb said:
Burned out a week before ash wednesday, I think I am beginning to understand the sisterhood!

I was thinking about giving up lint, will that be kosher? :smile:

That's okay, I was going to give up giving up stuff for Lent. :biggrin: OUCH! Dang, that cross really burns sometimes, even through the asbestos habit. I think the demon possession thread is under control, so I'm going to get out of this thing.
 
  • #12
I saw a news report on (CNN?MSNBC?) that covered this story, but they said that fidgety people burned 350 more calories. What do you want to bet an overweight person put the fidgety spin on the article.
 
  • #13
Moonbear said:
That's okay, I was going to give up giving up stuff for Lent. :biggrin: OUCH! Dang, that cross really burns sometimes, even through the asbestos habit. I think the demon possession thread is under control, so I'm going to get out of this thing.
wanna earn some beads?
 
  • #14
tribdog said:
I saw a news report on (CNN?MSNBC?) that covered this story, but they said that fidgety people burned 350 more calories. What do you want to bet an overweight person put the fidgety spin on the article.

The brief summary they put in their perspectives section (the few pages that are written so the lay public has a hope of understanding some of what's being written about) mentioned both sitting less and being fidgety. I do think they go together. If I'm not walking around or standing, I'm rarely sitting still. I have to be REALLY sick to sit perfectly still, and that would only be because the room is moving around me.
 
  • #15
tribdog said:
wanna earn some beads?

:devil: I have my shirt up in the picture; too bad the camera didn't catch anything below my neck. :smile:
 
  • #16
Moonbear said:
That's okay, I was going to give up giving up stuff for Lent. :biggrin: OUCH! Dang, that cross really burns sometimes, even through the asbestos habit. I think the demon possession thread is under control, so I'm going to get out of this thong.

Here, you can have my lint!
*empties pocket into diskdrive*

Get out of your thong!
:-p WOOOOO WEEEEEEEE, fat tuesday has started early! Throw in some beeds there tribdog! :biggrin: :-p :smile: :biggrin:
 
  • #17
Moonbear said:
:devil: I have my shirt up in the picture; too bad the camera didn't catch anything below my neck. :smile:
what if I tilt my monitor forward so I can see down below the edge?
 
  • #18
polyb said:
Here, you can have my lint!
*empties pocket into diskdrive*

Get out of your thong!
:-p WOOOOO WEEEEEEEE, fat tuesday has started early! Throw in some beeds there tribdog! :biggrin: :-p :smile: :biggrin:

I believe in a full week of partying for Mardi Gras. I'm just warming up today, trying on the masks, trying to get my hair to stop looking so flat (those habits really do give me terrible hat hair), and selecting the week's worth of lingerie.
 
  • #19
polyb said:
Here, you can have my lint!
*empties pocket into diskdrive*

Get out of your thong!
:-p WOOOOO WEEEEEEEE, fat tuesday has started early! Throw in some beeds there tribdog! :biggrin: :-p :smile: :biggrin:
you're too hyper for me. I'm still recovering from last night. I'm old, neutered and hung-over. If you yell wooo weee in my ear one more time I might shoot you...waiiiiit...thong? WOOOOOOO WEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
 
  • #20
tribdog said:
you're too hyper for me. I'm still recovering from last night. I'm old, neutered and hung-over. If you yell wooo weee in my ear one more time I might shoot you...waiiiiit...thong? WOOOOOOO WEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Just doing my civic duty and keeping you guys from sitting still too long. :biggrin:
 
  • #21
Moonbear said:
Just doing my civic duty and keeping you guys from sitting still too long. :biggrin:

And we salute you! :smile:
 
  • #22
Moonbear said:
The brief summary they put in their perspectives section (the few pages that are written so the lay public has a hope of understanding some of what's being written about) mentioned both sitting less and being fidgety. I do think they go together. If I'm not walking around or standing, I'm rarely sitting still. I have to be REALLY sick to sit perfectly still, and that would only be because the room is moving around me.
I read an article about fidgety people (swinging their legs, tapping their feet, constantly getting up and pacing) burning as much as 600 extra calories per day (depending on activity) and this was at least 16 years ago!
 
  • #23
Evo said:
I read an article about fidgety people (swinging their legs, tapping their feet, constantly getting up and pacing) burning as much as 600 extra calories per day (depending on activity) and this was at least 16 years ago!

And see how wrong they were! It's only 350 calories. Thank heavens for modern research to correct our past errors. :smile:

What struck me as funniest is the acronyms they chose for things. I really thought it was a spoof when I first came across it today, and that's why I had to find the original article and verify it. It sounded too much like the abstract I wrote about GTMS! Maybe I should publish that in Science! Oh, wait, that's all fictional data. Can I get a few geek volunteers please? *heads over to the calculator thread*
 
  • #24
Moonbear said:
And see how wrong they were! It's only 350 calories. Thank heavens for modern research to correct our past errors. :smile:

What struck me as funniest is the acronyms they chose for things. I really thought it was a spoof when I first came across it today, and that's why I had to find the original article and verify it. It sounded too much like the abstract I wrote about GTMS! Maybe I should publish that in Science! Oh, wait, that's all fictional data. Can I get a few geek volunteers please? *heads over to the calculator thread*

Right here.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top