Laying Vs Sitting Vs Standing Vs Walking

[Kasper]

I was wondering, today many people believe that we are sitting too much in a day, and with bad posture.

So I wonder, what do you guys think about that? If I sit I have higher pulse than if I lay. I guess just more muscles are active. If I sit with good posture, I also have higher pulse. After a walk, my temps seem to be always above 37 degrees.

However, this is probably not because of thyroid. I think Ray Peat says that while walking thyroid decreases. Maybe because otherwise the body gets overheated? I don't know. What do you guys think?

 

[m_arch]

Sitting and walking would definiately be more pro-metabolic. I think that the main stressor is exercise that induces hyperventilation from the mouth, aka you stop nose breathing.

Dr. Buteyko recommended exercise - but only with nose breathing.

Another comment on exercise - I think infant developmental movement patterns are very restorative. Crawling, rocking, rolling - they seem to be great prehab / rehab type movements for better function in general.

 

[thegiantess]

Yes. Exercise. We were not evolved to sit all day, much less lay. If you see photos of traditional cultures a lot of them are actually in the squat position when they are at rest/not up and moving. For example, women preparing food. Before reading any Peat I would have said that any movement was better than none, but now I mostly buy the idea that it shouldn't be breathless exercise on a regular basis. So walking and other light movements and maybe the occasional breathless activity.

 

[mt_dreams]

If you see photos of traditional cultures a lot of them are actually in the squat position when they are at rest/not up and moving.

Eastern cultures still squat. At the asiam market I shop at, I routinely see workers squatting during their break while they have a smoke or check their cell.

 

[Amazoniac]

Supporting Constatine and West of the sides' cause..

- Physiological and health implications of a sedentary lifestyle

"[..]emerging evidence suggests that sedentary behaviour, as distinct from a lack of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), has independent and qualitatively different effects on human metabolism, physical function, and health outcomes and thus should be treated as a separate and unique construct (Owen et al. 2000; Hamilton et al. 2004, 2007, 2009; Healy et al. 2008c; Katzmarzyk et al. 2008; Pate et al. 2008; Rosenberg et al. 2008; Owen et al. 2010)."

"Conceptualizing sedentary behaviour as distinct from a lack of physical activity is important for three main reasons: (i) the unique nature of sedentary behaviour, (ii) the physiological responses of sedentary behaviour, and (iii) the measurement of sedentary behaviour."

"One of the demonstrated effects of sedentary behaviour is metabolic dysfunction, characterized by increased plasma triglyceride levels, decreased levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and decreased insulin sensitivity. For example, Hamburg et al. (2007) examined the effect of 5 days of complete bed rest on metabolic health in 22 adult volunteers. Study participants remained in bed for over 23.5 h per day, rising only for matters of personal hygiene. At the completion of the study, despite no changes in body weight, they experienced significant increases in total cholesterol, plasma triglycerides, glucose, and insulin resistance. The changes in carbohydrate metabolism were particularly pronounced, with participants experiencing a 67% greater insulin response to a glucose load following the 5-day intervention."

"The results of Hamburg et al. (2007) suggest that an extended dose of sedentary behaviour can result in dramatically increased metabolic risk. Similar results have been reported by Yanagibori et al. (1998), who found that 20 days of bed rest resulted in a significant increase in plasma triglycerides and a significant decrease in HDL cholesterol levels. These findings are further corroborated by reports suggesting that individuals with spinal cord injuries, a condition characterized by high amounts of time spent sedentary, also suffer from an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (Bauman and Spungen 2008)."

"The deleterious effects of sedentary behaviour on metabolic health appear to be at least partially mediated by changes in lipoprotein lipase (LPL) activity. LPL is an enzyme that facilitates the uptake of free fatty acids into skeletal muscle and adipose tissue (Hamilton et al. 2007). Low levels of LPL are associated with increased circulating triglyceride levels, decreased HDL cholesterol, and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (Hamilton et al. 2007). LPL activity appears to be reduced in response to both acute and chronic sedentary behaviour."

"[In a rat study,] it took just 4 h of light-intensity walking and normal cage activity to return LPL activity in the lower limbs to baseline levels."

"[..]following 11 days of bed rest in healthy Japanese subjects, Yanagibori et al. (1998) observed an 18% decrease in LPL activity, accompanied by significant increases in plasma triglycerides and decreases in HDL cholesterol. Significant decreases in muscle LPL activity have also been observed in response to 2 weeks of detraining in endurance athletes (Simsolo et al. 1993)."

"[..]the reduction in LPL activity in response to sedentary behaviour is largely restricted to oxidative muscle fibers, while increases in LPL activity in response to physical activity are found mainly in glycolytic fibers."

"In addition to LPL activity, several reports suggest that sedentary behaviour affects carbohydrate metabolism through changes in muscle glucose transporter (GLUT) protein content. These proteins are critical to basal (GLUT-1), insulin (GLUT-4), and exercise (GLUT-4) stimulated glucose uptake (Henriksen et al. 1990; Klip and Paquet 1990; Kawanaka et al. 1997)."

"GLUT content is reported to increase dramatically in response to very low intensity exercise in individuals with spinal cord injury, who are likely to exhibit a high level of sedentary behaviour (Chilibeck et al. 1999; Phillips et al. 2004). Phillips and colleagues (2004) examined changes in muscle GLUT content in response to 6 months of body weight supported treadmill exercise in individuals with spinal cord injury. Following the exercise intervention, the authors reported a 126% increase in muscle GLUT-4 content, as well as improved oral glucose tolerance (Phillips et al. 2004). Similarly, Chilibeck and colleagues reported a 52% increase in GLUT-1 content and 72% increase in GLUT-4 content following 8 weeks of functional electrical stimulation exercise in paralyzed human skeletal muscle in addition to increased oxidative capacity and insulin sensitivity (Chilibeck et al. 1999). Of note, the intensity of exercise in both these intervention studies was extremely low. For example, the walking speed employed by Phillips et al. (2004) was less than 0.6 km/h, while the intensity of exercise used by Chilibeck and colleagues (1999) was equivalent to 6 W. Both these work rates resulted in dramatic increases in GLUT content despite being far lower than what would be considered moderate physical activity. Together, these studies suggest that even minor increases in contractile activity can dramatically increase muscle GLUT content and glucose tolerance in sedentary individuals."

"Another well-documented deleterious effect of sedentary behaviour is a reduction in bone mineral density (Caillot- Augusseau et al. 1998; Morey-Holton and Globus 1998; Zerwekh et al. 1998; Kim et al. 2003; Smith et al. 2003; Zwart et al. 2007). Both humans and animals experience dramatic reductions in bone mass following long periods of time spent in orbit, and significant decreases have also been reported in individuals following spinal cord injuries (Garland et al. 1992) and during long-term bed rest (Zerwekh et al. 1998). Zerwekh and colleagues reported reductions in bone mineral density of 1% to 4% in the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and greater trochanter of healthy men and women following 12 weeks of bed rest (Zerwekh et al. 1998)." "[..]studies suggest that sedentary behaviour leads to a rapid increase in bone resorption without concomitant changes in bone formation, eventually resulting in reduced bone mineral content and increased risk of osteoporosis."

"Although it has yet to receive the same attention as bone mineral density or metabolic health, limited evidence indicates that sedentary behaviour may also have deleterious effects on vascular health (Purdy et al. 1998; Bleeker et al. 2005; Demiot et al. 2007; Hamburg et al. 2007; Schrage 2008)."

Now some observations for the invincible reader:

"A total of 50 277 women, who were not obese at baseline, were followed over a 6-year period. In analyses adjusting for other lifestyle factors, including diet and physical activity, each 2 h/d increase in TV viewing time was associated with a 23% increase in obesity (Hu et al. 2003). Importantly, this study also examined other sedentary behaviours, where each 2 h/d increase in sitting at work was associated with a 5% increased risk of obesity."

"TV viewing time has been associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (Hu et al. 2001, 2003), acute coronary syndrome (Burazeri et al. 2008), metabolic syndrome (Bertrais et al. 2005; Dunstan et al. 2005; Ford et al. 2005; Gao et al. 2007), and abnormal glucose tolerance (Dunstan et al. 2004), as well as biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk (Jakes et al. 2003; Aadahl et al. 2007; Dunstan et al. 2007; Healy et al. 2008b). In the Nurses’ Health Study, each 2 h/d increase in TV viewing time was associated with a 14% increase in type 2 diabetes, while each 2 h/d increase in sitting at work was associated with a 7% increase (Hu et al. 2003)."

"women who spent +-7 h/d sitting had an increased risk of endometrial cancer compared with those who were sitting less than 3 h/d (Gierach et al. 2009). Other studies have confirmed these findings, with detrimental associations between self-reported sedentary behaviours and risk of ovarian (Patel et al. 2006) and endometrial cancer (Friberg et al. 2006); higher percent breast density (Wolin et al. 2007); and with postdiagnosis weight gain in colorectal cancer survivors (Wijndaele et al. 2009)."

"Physically active children report greater body satisfaction, self-esteem, and physical self-perceptions than their sedentary peers (Health Education Authority 1998), and increasing physical activity and exercise improves global self-esteem in youth, independent of changes in body weight (Ekeland et al. 2004). Similarly, a positive dose–response relationship between amount of exercise and both physical and mental quality of life measures has been observed in healthy adults (Martin et al. 2009). There is considerably more evidence linking increases in physical activity to improved mental health and psychosocial outcomes than to decreases in sedentary behaviours."​

- https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/357332

"Relatively high amounts of sedentary time (daily/weekly sitting time) have been associated with significantly greater risk for type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome in two meta-analyses (table 1). One meta-analysis examined 10 studies (6 prospective) including 505,045 participants [10], and found that there was a 112% greater pooled relative risk of diabetes associated with large versus small amounts of TV time (typically differing by a few hours per day as shown in table 1, column 4). To put these results in perspective, the meta-analysis providing support for the current US federal physical activity guidelines was associated with a 1.4-fold greater pooled relative risk of diabetes for people who did not meet the guideline-defined types of activity, such as brisk walking [2]. As is often the case in studies focused on the risks of sedentary behavior, the relationships between TV time and type 2 diabetes were independent of self-reported ‘physical activity' (meaning exercise-like behaviors). This is likely relevant to the objective evidence that sedentary time is unrelated to the time that people engage in the activity profile currently recommended in the US federal guidelines [12]. Authors also concluded from meta-analysis that sedentary time is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality, while the strength of the association is most consistent for type 2 diabetes [10]."

"TV watching is obviously just one of the more common reasons why people sit for long periods of time with inactive (noncontracting) muscles. But it is important to note that two recent studies concluded from self-reported total sitting time both in youth [13] and adults with type 2 diabetes [11] that more total sitting time across the lifespan appears to be associated with diabetes independent of BMI. It is also insightful to notice that these relationships with disease rates remained significant in some of the studies additionally modeling for BMI [14,15,16] but not in all situations [17,18]. Thus, while it is certainly plausible that excess body fat may contribute in part to the reason why TV time or other sedentary behaviors are related to diabetes risk, these epidemiological data are also alluding to the need to consider additional and more distinct mechanisms beyond BMI and body fat."

"Skeletal muscle insulin resistance is a key element in the development and progression of type 2 diabetes. A study of 801 apparently healthy participants, in which sedentary time was measured using accelerometry showed that sedentary time was inversely associated with insulin sensitivity, measured using a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp [43]. There was about 4 h difference between the groups with the most and the least sedentary time and ∼40% range in insulin-stimulated glucose uptake [43]. This relationship was independent of the amount of MVPA [43], as suggested previously for surrogate markers of insulin sensitivity [49]. Consistent with the logical proposition that sedentary time is a risk because of not enough total activity, the relative balance between total inactivity (sedentary time) and total cumulative daily activity was key for insulin sensitivity."

"Studies comparing a single day of sitting to controlled amounts of low-intensity activity are only starting to emerge and are insightful because the time is short enough to identify some of the more potent responses that are obviously independent of changes in body composition [52,53,54,55]. Stephens et al. [53] observed a 39% reduction in insulin-stimulated glucose uptake (tracer determined plasma glucose uptake per unit insulin) after a day of sitting compared to a trial with LIPA when energy intake was held constant by controlled feedings. The nonsedentary condition in that study involved a large duration of intermittent and low-intensity physical activity to counterbalance sitting time throughout ∼66% of the waking day. The activities were diverse and designed to mimic many of the typical activities of daily living, such as dishwashing, folding clothes, and putting away groceries with an estimated energy expenditure of ∼44 kcal/h greater in the active trial than the sedentary control trial, which was kept within a range between 1.1-2.7 METs [metabolic equivalent tasks of low-intensity activity]. The relative intensity was particularly light for these young participants, with the estimated average energy expenditure at significantly less than ∼20% of measured VO2max. Thus, one contribution from that study was that although the intensity was below the range described as ‘health promoting' in the federal physical activity guidelines, insulin action was nevertheless significantly impacted. And somewhat to our surprise, this rather large 39% effect on insulin action was evident even though it was assessed the next morning after a night of rest and before getting out of bed."

"Duvivier et al. [54] reported that replacing sedentary time with a large amount of nonexercise physical activity was more effective than exercise in reducing plasma triglyceride, non-HDL cholesterol and postprandial insulin. In that intervention, the conclusion was the duration was more important than intensity because the caloric expenditure of exercise versus nonexercise activity was matched [54]."

"A remarkably fundamental concept that is useful for guiding inactivity physiology is simply that muscle cells are constantly sensing and responding to their environment, thus contractile activity and inactivity over the whole day counts. With regard to sedentary time, this means that muscle tissue is potentially responsive to the balance of total time spent either without contractile activity (sedentary) or in contractile activity, not just in the hour during formal exercise. And furthermore, as with any acute metabolic response, the most robust of these daily effects are probably relatively short-lived. Figure 1 illustrates results for 3 processes. Global gene profiling indicates diversity and potency of the responses potentially important for prevention of type 2 diabetes and related metabolic risks, including genes previously shown to modulate glucose metabolism (e.g. GLUT1, OGTase P110, SNAP-23, and Rad) and frequently associated processes such as inflammation and thrombosis (e.g. lipid phosphate phosphatase-1, LPP1). One study identified over 100 genes with significantly altered expression during the transitions between periods of acute inactivity and activity [58]. Notice that inactivity actually stimulated the rise in the expression of just as many genes as it did repress gene expression, invoking molecular processes turned on in response to sedentary behavior. And also of particular interest, there was a large cluster of genes that had a significant increase in expression during a period of prolonged inactivity for 12 h, yet unexpectedly did not reverse back to normal within several hours after regaining contractile activity (fig. 1b). These findings have led to a better understanding of the regulation of several known and several novel candidates mediating causal mechanisms. For example, LPP1 is involved in inactivating a subfamily of lysophospholipids known to cause impaired glucose tolerance in obese mice [68]. Follow-up studies (fig. 1d) [61] confirmed these responses and extended the findings to reveal that LPP1 is rapidly reduced in both rats and humans when skeletal muscle is inactive; yet, this gene was apparently unresponsive to an hour per day of intense exercise."​

- Physiological Responses to Sedentary Behaviour

- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1348/135910705X43606

Yours,
Claw crane machine