Wilmot EG, Edwardson CL, Achana FA, et al. Sedentary time in adults and the association with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and death: systematic review and meta-analysis

Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester Diabetes Centre, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester, LE5 4PW, UK.
Diabetologia (Impact Factor: 6.67). 08/2012; 55(11):2895-905. DOI: 10.1007/s00125-012-2677-z
Source: PubMed


Sedentary (sitting) behaviours are ubiquitous in modern society. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the association of sedentary time with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.
Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for terms related to sedentary time and health outcomes. Cross-sectional and prospective studies were included. RR/HR and 95% CIs were extracted by two independent reviewers. Data were adjusted for baseline event rate and pooled using a random-effects model. Bayesian predictive effects and intervals were calculated to indicate the variance in outcomes that would be expected if new studies were conducted in the future.
Eighteen studies (16 prospective, two cross-sectional) were included, with 794,577 participants. Fifteen of these studies were moderate to high quality. The greatest sedentary time compared with the lowest was associated with a 112% increase in the RR of diabetes (RR 2.12; 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.61, 2.78), a 147% increase in the RR of cardiovascular events (RR 2.47; 95% CI 1.44, 4.24), a 90% increase in the risk of cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.90; 95% CrI 1.36, 2.66) and a 49% increase in the risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.49; 95% CrI 1.14, 2.03). The predictive effects and intervals were only significant for diabetes.
Sedentary time is associated with an increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality; the strength of the association is most consistent for diabetes.

Download full-text


Available from: Stuart J.H. Biddle
  • Source
    • "Prospective studies have shown that adults who accrue high volumes of sedentary behaviour are at a higher risk of developing chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes171819and cardiovascular disease[20], as well as at a higher risk of all-cause and disease-specific mortality2122232425. Importantly, the association between prolonged sitting and detrimental health outcomes remains significant even after adjustment for time spent in MVPA[16,262728, indicating that, for optimal health benefits, people should both be active and limit their time spent in sedentary behaviour. For the prevention and management of chronic diseases, leading global and national health authorities, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Australian Government, Department of Health, recommend that adults should participate in: (i) at least 150 min/week of moderate (e.g. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The current Australia's Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines recommend that adults engage in regular moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) and strength training (ST), and minimise time spent in sedentary behaviours (SB). However, evidence about the specific individual and concurrent distribution of these behaviours in Australia is scarce. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and sociodemographic correlates of MVPA, ST and SB in a national-representative sample of Australian adults. Methods Data were collected using face-to-face interviews, as part of the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey 2011–12. The population-weighted proportions meeting the MVPA (≥150 min/week), ST (≥2 sessions/week) and combined MVPA-ST guidelines, and proportions classified as having ‘low levels of SB’ (<480 min/day) were calculated, and their associations with selected sociodemographic and health-related variables were assessed using multiple logistic regression analyses. This was also done for those at potentially ‘high-risk’, defined as insufficient MVPA-ST and ‘high-sedentary’ behaviour. Results Out of 9345 participants (response rate = 77.0 %), aged 18–85 years, 52.6 % (95 % CI: 51.2 %–54.0 %), 18.6 % (95 % CI: 17.5 %–19.7 %) and 15.0 % (95 % CI: 13.9 %–16.1 %) met the MVPA, ST and combined MVPA-ST guidelines, respectively. Female gender, older age, low/medium education, poorer self-rated health, being classified as underweight or obese, and being a current smoker were independently associated with lower odds of meeting the MVPA, ST and combined MVPA-ST guidelines. A total of 78.9 % (95 % CI: 77.9 %–80.0 %) were classified as having low levels of SB. Females, older adults and those with lower education were more likely to report lower levels of SB, whilst those with poor self-rated health and obese individuals were less likely to report lower levels of SB (i.e. SB = ≥480 min/day). A total of 8.9 % (95 % CI: 8.1 %–9.6 %) were categorised as individuals at potentially ‘high-risk’. Those with poorer self-rated health, obese individuals, those aged 25–44, and current smokers were more likely to be in the ‘high risk’ group. Conclusions The large majority of Australian adults do not meet the full physical activity guidelines and/or report excessive SB. Our results call for public health interventions to reduce physical inactivity and SB in Australia, particularly among the subgroups at the highest risk of these unhealthy behaviours.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2015 · BMC Public Health
  • Source
    • "The tedious nature of design requires lots of detailed mouse clicks with fine resolution, resulting in long durations of static seated postures. Sedentary work has been linked to several adverse disorders and disabilities, such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease (MacEwen, MacDonald, & Burr, 2015; Wilmot et al., 2012). Musculoskeletal disorders have also been linked to sedentary work, specifically those of the hand and wrist, neck, upper back, and low back (Ekman, Andersson, Hagberg, & Heljm, 2000; Gerr et al., 2002; Korhenon et al., 2003; Rocha et al., 2005; Wahlström, 2005; Wahlström , Hagberg, Toomingas, & Tornqvist, 2004). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The new trend in office ergonomics is installing dynamic workstations that include sit-to-stand tables, treadmills, stationary bicycles, and exercise balls. The question is whether it is worth the investment to try to reduce musculoskeletal pain via these dynamic workstations. Postural change is good, but the most effective workstation seems to be the sit-to-stand table with respect to reducing discomfort suffered by office workers. Treadmills and cycle workstations do have the ability to increase energy expenditure and heart rate and thus are potentially beneficial in addressing obesity that results from sedentary work. For all outcomes, the key is to periodically get up and move around.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2015 · Ergonomics in Design The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications
    • "A large epidemiological study (N = 222,497) showed that prolonged sitting is a risk factor for all-cause mortality, independent of physical activity, and is responsible for 7% of premature deaths (van der Ploeg, Chey, Korda, Banks, & Bauman, 2012). Reviews on epidemiological studies have suggested that sedentary behavior (i.e., overall sedentary behavior, including occupational and leisure time) is a major independent lifestyle risk factor for the development of obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer (Proper, Singh, van Mechelen, & Chinapaw, 2011; Thorp, Owen, Neuhaus, & Dunstan, 2011; van Uffelen et al., 2010; Wilmot et al., 2012). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Office workers spend a large part of their workday sitting down. Too much sitting seems bad for people's health and puts them at risk for premature death. Workstation alternatives that allow desk work to be done while standing, walking, biking, or stepping reduce the total time spent sitting without affecting work performance much. Moreover, these alternatives seem acceptable to users. Future research is needed to determine long-term effects and whether results apply to different working populations. Ergonomists play an important role in developing recommendations for the setup and use of alternative workstations and in improving their feasibility.
    No preview · Article · Jul 2015 · Ergonomics in Design The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications
Show more