Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Sedentary Physiology at Obesity Panacea
I want to direct attention to a thought-provoking series of articles at the Obesity Panacea blog. The major argument being put forth is that participation in formal exercise may not be enough to overcome the negative health consequences of being a "couch potato" or "desk jockey". Fascinating stuff! Here is the first installment: Sedentary Physiology Part I: Not Just the Lack of Physical Activity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
This is interesting.
If sedentary behaviour results in increased caloric intake, that is obviously going to cause excessive bodyfat accumulation (& all of the health problems caused by it) long-term. Muscles that don't burn much energy don't take in much fatty acids or glucose (as they don't need them) so surplus kcals of fat & glucose linger in the blood with nowhere to go except fat cells (unless they're also resistant).
If sedentary behaviour results in reduced caloric intake (such that kcals in = kcals out), is that going to cause problems long-term? That's what I want to know. Maybe Part 5 will shed some light.
Cheers, Nige.
That's a good question, Nige. The direction the series is taking leads me to believe that sedentary behavior in and of itself is deleterious to health (with the caveat, of course, that every individual is unique and some can be sedentary and suffer no ill consequence). But like you said, we'll have to wait until the end of the series to see.
Good question Nigel. I just saw your comment and since I don't really address it in Part 5, I thought I'd do so here!
In general it seems that sedentary behaviour is associated with increased caloric intake, whether because it increases hunger or just because we happen to munch on foods while we sit in front of the TV. At the same time, as LynMarie points out, sitting has deleterious effects on skeletal muscle that are completely independent of food intake. So even if people are in caloric balance, sitting too much is still likely to put them at increased health risk.
Thanks for linking to our series, LynMarie!
Travis
You're welcome Travis! Thanks for your comment!
Hi Travis. Thanks for responding.
I had a horrible feeling that you would say that. Most days of the week, I'm lounging on a sofa with my lap-top on a little table "browsing the internet". As I'm so engrossed in what I'm doing, I don't eat for hours at a time and when I do, I don't eat very much.
I feel a blog post coming on!
Cheers, Nige.
> sitting has deleterious effects on skeletal muscle
Is it simply being stationary, or something else?
Just wondering if my last 2 years using a stand up desk (moving much more often than when I sat, but still "stationary" for long periods) makes any difference.
My understanding is that sitting is uniquely deleterious because it uses so few muscles. Standing activates postural muscles, I believe.
Travis may not see your question here Sanjeev. If you're looking for an answer from him specifically, you may need to go over to Obesity Panacea.
Thank you for taking the time, Ms Daye,
I may ask but It was an FYI (or F my I) question; sitting's excruciatingly painful, at unpredictable times, so I'll be standing regardless of the answer.
Update: As my latest bloods showed moderate dyslipidaemia, I have made an effort to ‘move more’. In practical terms, ‘move more’ was problematical for me, as it often resulted in ‘eat much more’ due to appetite increase and post-exercise bingeing. One solution I’ve found is to exercise (e.g. go for a walk) just after eating breakfast.
Adopting a low-carbohydrate diet definitely helps with the ‘eat less’ part of ELMM.
Your solution sounds good Nige. Do you find that you subconciously eat a little less at breakfast because you know you're going for a walk immediately afterwards?
Maybe. I find that 1 slice of Burgen toast washed down with a milky coffee suffices. I was having 2 slices before. So far, so good.
I'm going for a walk after more meals now. It gets me away from the computer!
Hi LynMarie
I finally clicked thro' to this post on Plos and read all the parts in one session.
I am "upregulated" - aka excited? - by the nuances being explored by the distinction between physiological occurring at < 1.5 METs and those at higher rates.
Thanks for that and also on the earlier post re: Endocrinology's "Black Hole".
I like your low key approach!
You're welcome Leon! And thanks for the compliment :~)
This link to ScienceDaily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110126161835.htm
suggests that in Type 1 Diabetics the "fix" for dead beta cells is to kill the alpha cells and halt glucagon production!
Well, I do declare.
Thanks for bringing the article to my attention, Leon. What an intriguing idea! This quote from the article makes me have a whole new appreciation for lil' ole glucagon: "But in adulthood, at least with respect to glucose metabolism, the role of insulin is to control glucagon. And if you don't have glucagon, then you don't need insulin."
Hey, let's get rid that evil pancreas(s) altogether!
A cure for type 1 diabetes *AND* pancreatitis. I think you're on to something Leon! ;`)
Post a Comment