Sitting more than 13 hours a day. Good or bad for your health?


Sitting for the majority of the day can make us immune to the typical metabolic advantages of exercise, as shown by a small but stressing new research. The findings, at the Journal of Applied Physiology, imply that childbirth may change our bodies in a way which aren’t just unhealthy in there but also blunt the healthfulness of exercise.

We all know, that physical activity is excellent for us and being sedentary, for the large part, isn’t.

Regular exercise lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease,

Type 2 diabetes and many other chronic problems. A single workout can enhance our metabolisms; studies reveal so that we burn fat more effectively after foods and maintain our blood glucose and insulin levels stable.

Inactivity contains reverse physiological outcomes. Individuals who spend most of their waking hours face risks for chronic ailments. They frequently also experience metabolic issues that increase the possibility of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, such as insulin resistance, inadequate blood glucose control and elevated levels of sugars, the fatty acids in foods which linger from the blood if they’re not metabolised.

Nevertheless, the biological interplay between exercise and childbirth has been vexing. Is sitting bad for us, mainly because we’re not exercising when we’re lying? Or does sitting possess its particular effects on our bodies and, if so, can these results alter or perhaps overpower the positive gifts of exercise?

Those queries lately prompted scientists in the University of Texas in Austin to opt to request a set of 10 healthy, physically active graduate students if they’d take for their sofas or chairs and stay there, unmoving, for days ahead.

The investigators expected to learn from that experiment about the different and intertwined effects of exercise and childbirth healthy people’s metabolisms, and if one can outshine the ramifications of another.

They started by assessing the wellness and aerobic fitness of the ten young women and men who’d volunteered and matching them together with activity monitors to quantify how much they generally moved.

They then asked the volunteers to quit moving so much and instead confine themselves to fewer than 4,000 steps per day and at least 13 hours of staying still.

The volunteers complied, sitting almost uninterrupted, for four times in a row.

They also shifted their diets marginally, consuming fewer calories, which means they wouldn’t gain weight, which could have changed their metabolisms, individually from the sitting.

On the dawn of the fifth day, the volunteers observed the university’s performance laboratory. There they were awarded a massive breakfast shake made up of half-and-half and melted ice cream.

The idea, says Edward Coyle, a professor of kinesiology in UT-Austin and senior author of this new study, was to observe the way their metabolisms would react to the outlandishly fatty, greasy meal following their times of enforced idleness.

So, the researchers tracked their blood for blood glucose sugar and insulin to another six hours.

In the end, the researchers needed their volunteers to replicate the whole four-days-in-a-chair part of the experiment, requesting them to become nearly entirely sedentary.

However, this moment, on the day of the fourth day, the volunteers exercised, running for one hour at the laboratory.

This morning they returned into the laboratory and downed the same creamy shake before. The researchers repeatedly scrutinised their blood for amounts of amino acids and blood glucose. They then compared the metabolic consequences after every semester of prolonged sitting.

It was, to no one’s surprise, that four times of zero exercises had abandoned the pupils with somewhat sluggish, overtaxed metabolisms. Even hours following their unctuous breakfast, they exhibited high levels of triglycerides and blood glucose and reduced insulin sensitivity.

More Favorable, the practice did not appear to help. The pupils’ triglycerides and blood sugar levels were no better in the morning after they had run than when they had not.

These results suggest that being sedentary for extended periods may create conditions inside our bodies” which make us immune to the typical metabolic improvements after intense exercise,” Dr Coyle says.

And it does not explain how inactivity might be undercutting the benefits of exercise, although Dr Coyle suspects that lengthy sitting increases the body’s production of certain undesirable biochemical substances and may hinder the release of other beneficial materials that generally would be produced during exercise.

He and his colleagues hope to explore some of those issues in future studies. But even now, he says, the data indicate that”it is an excellent idea not to sit.”

You might want to read about Prevent Health Complications – Reduce Weight!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here