Dr. Phil Shares: The Surprising Connection Between Obesity and Artificial Light

The Surprising Connection Between Obesity and Artificial Light

Before you crawl into bed tonight, turn out the lights and power down your devices. Exposure to artificial light — from sources such as overhead lights, smartphones and televisions — was associated with higher rates of obesity, according to new research published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The study included almost 44,000 women between the ages of 35–74 over a six-year period and found women who were exposed to artificial light while sleeping had a 17% higher risk of gaining approximately 11 pounds compared to those who slept in the dark; their rates of obesity were 33% higher. Women who fell asleep with a television or light on were also more apt to gain weight and become overweight or obese over time.

LIGHT AND CIRCADIAN RHYTHM

“Humans are genetically adapted to be active during daylight and sleep in darkness at night,” explains lead author Dr. Yong-Moon (“Mark”) Park, MD, postdoctoral fellow at the National Institutes of Health. “Exposure to light at night while sleeping could alter the body’s 24-hour body clock leading to changes in hormones and other biological processes that regulate sleep, appetite and weight gain.”

While the study focused on exposure to artificial light in the bedroom but Park notes that light coming from outside the room — from other rooms or street lights, for example — was also associated with a slightly increased risk of weight gain. The study did not explore whether overall exposure to artificial light, including daytime exposures, had an impact on weight.

THE SLEEP-WEIGHT CONNECTION

Several studies have linked sleep issues, including insomnia, sleep duration and sleep disruptions, to higher rates of obesity. Research published in the journal Sleep Medicine found the incidence of obesity was higher among those who slept fewer than six hours or more than nine hours per night; chronic insomnia was also associated with higher BMI, according to one study.

The link between sleep and obesity is one reason to make improving sleep a priority, says Lu Qi, MD, PhD, director of the Tulane University Obesity Research Center. But sleep is just one of the known risk factors for obesity. Lifestyle factors such as an unhealthy diet, sedentary lifestyle, stress and smoking are also linked to an increased likelihood of being overweight or obese.

THE TAKEAWAY

“Even if you improve your sleep habits, you still need to pay attention to other risk factors,” says Qi. “We also need to be cautious in interpreting these results; artificial light might be a factor but it could be correlated to other habits that were not part of this study.”

Park agrees, adding, “While our study provides stronger evidence than other previous studies it is still not conclusive. Even so, it seems reasonable to advise people not to sleep with lights on. Turning off the lights at bedtime may be a simple thing we can do to reduce the chances of gaining weight.”

by Jodi Helmer

Shared by Dr. Phil McAllister @ Forward Health Guelph

Dr. Phil Shares: Screen Time Negatively Affects Children’s Health

Screen time is quickly becoming one of the hottest topics for parents, healthcare practitioners, and educators. How much screen time should children and adolescents be allowed per day? Does screen time include the time spent on laptops to complete homework and reading assignments for classes? At what age should children begin to use screens? When is an appropriate developmental timeframe to buy your child a phone? Does the use of screens increase the risks of behavioral disorders and sleep problems in children and adolescents? The list of questions goes on and on.

Unfortunately, many of the answers to these questions are simply unknown at this time and some, honestly, are personal choices that each family has to make for themselves. Truly, there is no denying that the digital age is here to stay; screens are all around us, from televisions to smart watches, from iPods to smart phones, from tablets to laptops, there is literally a screen for everything. In 2017, 98% of homes in the US with young children had a mobile touch-screen device compared to 2011 when only 52% of households had such technology.1

Globally, the availability and usage of mobile touch-screen devices by children are at astonishingly high rates:1

  • In Australia, children under 2 years are reported to have an average weekly screen time of 14.2 hours, while those between 2-5 years old average 25.9 hours
  • In France, 78% of children were using a mobile touch-screen device by 14 months of age and 90% of children by 2 years of age
  • Across five countries in Southeast Asia, 66% of children between 3-8 years of age are reportedly using their parents’ mobile touch-screen device, while 14% of children already owned their own devices
  • In Britain, 21% of children aged 3-4 years of age are reported to own their own device

Interestingly enough, part of the dilemma of creating set guidelines on screen time in children is that there are various groups with sometimes competing and conflicting interests in this subject. Educational and tech focused organizations encourage the use of screen time for educational advantages and for enhanced benefits to long-term career and financial goals as children grow into adults. On the other hand, public health officials warn of the potential detriment to young minds and their still developing behaviors.

What is screen time displacing?

There are a variety of reasons cited by experts for keeping screen time to a minimum, particularly in young children.

Take for example the CDC, which states that children between the ages of 8-10 spend, on average, 6 hours per day in front of screens, including 4 hours of TV viewing.2 In children ages 11-14 this number skyrockets to 9 hours per day with approximately 5 of those being TV watching.2 Finally, in teenagers aged 15-18 the number of hours per day in front of a screen averages 7.5 with 4.5 being in front of a TV.2 These numbers are startling high when one realizes the activities which are NOT taking place when this much screen time is involved.

For instance –

  • Mentally and physically supportive health benefits which come from engaging in physical activity such as organized sports, neighborhood pick-up games, the unorganized activities of exploring and using imaginative play alone and in groups, and the quiet, downtime children and adolescents need to regroup and restore their bodies and minds
  • Social aspects of cultivating relationships with physically present individuals, learning how to read and empathize with emotional cues and needs, developing problem solving skills alone and in groups
  • Interconnectedness and responsibilities that come from supporting the family and local community networks through chores, volunteering, and taking part in events
  • Restful sleep and downtime to restore brain and body
  • Reading and engaging in learning opportunities not involving screens or directed education/learning
  • Mindful, present, and nutritious eating time with family, so as to avoid passive overconsumption of nutrient void foods

All of the above suffer when screen time overtakes the activities of unplugged healthful daily life.

Screen time duration impacts wellbeing

A study looked at the effects of screen time in 40,337 children and adolescents in the US between 12-17 years of age.3 For the purpose of this study, screen time included cell phones, computers, electronic devices, electronic games, and TV. The amounts of time spent on screens was compared to an array of psychological wellbeing measures.3

Results from this study found that the wellbeing of children and adolescents did not differ significantly (except in curiosity) between those spending no time on screens and those spending 1 hour or less per day on screens.3 However, after exceeding 1 hour of screen time, the risks to wellbeing increased– the researchers explained that increased screen time (> 1 hour/day), “was generally linked to progressively lower psychological well-being. In terms of relative risk (RR), high users of screens (≥ 7 hours/day) carried twice the risk of low well-being as low users (1 hour/day).”3 The low wellbeing measures included not staying calm (especially among 14- to 17-year-olds, RR 2.08), not finishing tasks (RR 2.53), not being curious (RR 2.72), and having less self-control and emotional stability.3 High users of screens compared to low users were described as more difficult to care for, while twice as many high (vs. low) users of screens had an anxiety or depression diagnosis.3 It was found that the effects of high screen time use on wellbeing was generally greater in adolescents than in children.3

Beyond psychological wellbeing, increased time spent on screens is also associated with increased risk of cardio-metabolic diseases and being overweight.4 It comes as no surprise that longer duration of reading and doing homework is associated with higher academic achievement.5 High use of screen time has also been linked to worsening sleep patterns in children and adolescents.6 In a review of 67 studies published from 1999 to early 2014, it was found that screen time was adversely associated with sleep outcomes (shortened duration and delayed timing) in children and adolescents in 90% of the studies.6  Knowing that restful and adequate sleep, particularly in children and adolescents, is associated with lower obesity risk, better psychological wellbeing, improved cognitive functioning, and lower risk-taking behaviors, it is important that the detrimental effects that screens have on sleep be minimized in this developing population.7

Managing & modeling healthy screen behaviors

A quick peak at the leading organizations’ recommendations on supporting healthy screen time in children and adolescents reveals similar guidelines across the groups which can be broken into 3 key areas:.

1. Model appropriate screen behavior. Modeling appropriate screen behavior begins with parents, guardians, caretakers, and educators. The authors in a BMC Obesity publication concluded that, “Mothers’ and fathers’ media parenting practices were associated with children’s screen time. Interventions aimed at reducing children’s screen time should address both mothers’ and fathers’ media parenting practices.”8 Screen time habits discussed in this article included, among other factors, screen use by parents during meal times.8

2. Limit screen time and limit to age-appropriate content. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends the following guidelines:9

  • For children younger than 18 months, avoid use of screen media other than video chatting. Parents of children 18-24 months of age who want to introduce digital media should choose high-quality programming, and watch it with their children to help them understand what they are seeing.
  • For children ages 2-5 years, limit screen use to 1 hour/day of high-quality programs. Parents should co-view media with children to help them understand what they are seeing and apply it to the world around them.
  • For children 6 years and older, place consistent limits on the time spent using media, and the types of media, and make sure media does not take the place of adequate sleep, physical activity, and other behaviors essential to health.

Some researchers and practitioners recommend limiting screen time to 2 hours/day after age 5, not including educational screen time such as what is used for school, studying, and work-related screen interactions.10

3. Encourage face-to-face interactions and physical activity on a regular basis. Be intentional about daily “screen-free” time, particularly during mealtime, conversations, play time, family time, and bedtime. Support daily exercise for all children and adolescents being especially cognizant that sedentary screen time does not become a part of a child’s habits before the age of 5.11

Citations

  1. Straker L et al. Conflicting guidelines on young children’s screen time and use of digital technology create policy and practice dilemmas. J Pediatr. 2018;202:300–303.
  2. CDC. Screen time vs lean time. https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dch/multimedia/infographics/getmoving.htm. Accessed December 18, 2018.
  3. Twenge JM et al. Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being among children and adolescents: Evidence from a population-based study. Prev Med Rep. 2018;12:271-283.
  4. Braig S et al. Screen time, physical activity and self-esteem in children: the Ulm birth cohort study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(6):E1275.
  5. Carson V et al. Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in school-aged children and youth: an update. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2016;41(6)3:S240-265.
  6. Hale L et al. Screen time and sleep among school-aged children and adolescents: A systematic literature review. Sleep Med Rev. 2015;21:50–58.
  7. LeBourgeois MK et al. Digital media and sleep in childhood and adolescence. Pediatrics. 2017;140(2):S92–S96.
  8. Tang L et al. Mothers’ and fathers’ media parenting practices associated with young children’s screen-time: a cross-sectional study. BMC Obes. 2018;5:37.
  9. American Academy of Pediatrics. AAP announces new recommendations for children’s media use. https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-Announces-New-Recommendations-for-Childrens-Media-Use.aspx. Accessed December 18, 2018.
  10. Mayo Clinic. The Mayo Clinic Minute. https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-minute-how-much-screen-time-is-too-much-for-kids/. Accessed December 18, 2018.
  11. Canadian Paediatric Society, Digital Health Task Force. Screen time and young children: promoting health and development in a digital world. Paediatr Child Health. 2017;22(8):461–468.

Bianca Garilli, ND, USMC Veteran

Shared by Dr. Phil McAllister @ Forward Health Guelph

Dr. Laura: Drugs that affect the microbiome

Drugs are one of the major factors that affect the microbiome. The impacts vary depending on the drug and duration of treatment.

The environmentfoodstress and drugs  all contribute to changes in the microbiome. This is why it is important to recognize and address any contributors that cause troubles.

Clinical intake and tests flushes out root causes and provide clarity. 

Why should I care?

Unique patterns in the microbiome link to different diseases. An unhealthy microbiome links to depression, anxiety, autistic disordersvitamin and mineral status (nutrient absorption)hormone production,  eczemadiabetes, obesity, arthritis and inflammatory bowel psoriasis and other autoimmune, conditions, heart healthcholesterolnon-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), diseases.  Research continues to expand this list.  

What is the microbiome?

The human microbiome exists in the gastrointestinal/urogenital tract and the skin. The trillions of cells that make up our microbiome actually out number the human cells that we have in our body by tenfold. Are we microbes having a human experience?

Healthy microbiome?

A healthy regular stool is not always indicative of a healthy microbiome. History of autoimmune conditions, food sensitivity, sugar cravings, gas, pain, bloating, bad breath, candidiasis, brain fog, mood changes, weight issues, skin issues, joint pain, trauma, stress, headaches, use of birth control or other hormones, frequent use of antibiotics and certain drugs can all be factors or indicators of microbiome disruption. 

What drugs affect the microbiome?

Your microbiome may be out of balance if you are currently, or have history of taking, any of the following drugs:

  • Antibiotics
  • Cancer Therapies
  • Antihistamines
  • Antidiabetic drugs
  • Anti-inflammatory drugs
  • GI disorder drugs
  • Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory drugs
  • Anti-psychotic drugs
  • Anti-coagulants
  • Hormones: estrogen, birth control, thyroid hormone

Find out more…tests available

One helpful test to look at the key players of the microbiome is the comprehensive stool and parasitic analysis. Knowledge of the landscape certainly helps streamline the treatment. 

Food sensitivities often rise when the microbiome is off balance. It is important to recognize the foods that are bothersome. Then remove them for a while and do the work to remove unwanted microbes and replace with healthy ones while repairing the gastrointestinal tract lining. Protocols are patient specific based on the microbiome the lining of gastrointestinal tract and the overall health of the patient. 

Dr. Laura M. Brown ND is a Naturopathic Doctor with a functional medicine approach. She is a Certified Gluten Practitioner, a HeartMath Certified Practitioner and is a graduate of Adapt Level 1 at Kresser Institute of Functional Medicine. Essentially, Dr. Brown helps people better digest their food and the word around them. More at www.naturalaura.ca and  www.forwardhealth.ca

Dr. Laura: Long Term Effects of Cortisol and Stress

Cortisol is released in a daily rhythm, but also in response to stress. Ever wonder what are the long term effects of cortisol (stress) in the body?

picture from  philosophytalk.org

Long term danger can be perceived in the form of anything that takes away our freedom, feeling unloved, feelings of insecurity, projecting into the future something that is not true, as if it were and  fear-based memories for future survival so as to avoid any repeat of traumatic events.

Cortisol is not all bad, it has some daily and life-saving functions. The problems lies when the body gets stuck in fear gear, cannot return to its natural state of homeostasis and subsequently has difficult with rest and digestion.

Normal Cortisol Function

Cortisol hormone produced by the adrenal glands. It is released twice a day with blood levels peaking in the morning, and rising slightly again in mid afternoon.

Throughout the day, cortisol:

  • Helps provide energy; maintains blood glucose
  • Suppresses nonvital organ systems to provide energy to the brain, nerves and muscles
  • Is a potent anti-inflammatory hormone
  • Prevents widespread tissue and nerve damage associated with inflammation

Short Term Stress Response

In response to a moment of physical or emotional shock or trauma, the body releases three main chemicals: epinephrine, norepinephrine and cortisol. In the short term, these chemicals trigger a series of events in the body to promote survival including anti-inflammatory actions and activation of energy to flee from the danger. Short term response has a clear purpose to better outcome (safety, life).

Once the epinephrine, norepinephrine and cortisol are released into the blood flow,

  • heart rate increases
  • blood pressure increases
  • respiration rate increases
  • arteries vasoconstrictor & release sweat.
  • pupils dilate
  • Pro inflammatory response so as to destroy antigens, pathogens, or foreign invaders; adrenoreceptor antagonists have been shown to inhibit stress-induced inflammation and cytokine production by blocking the proinflammatory effects of norepinephrine.

Long Term Cortisol Danger

Body’s release

When the brain feels you are in danger on an ongoing basis, cortisol release goes into overdrive. This can be things that threaten our survival like financial concerns, relationship problems, too many commitments, feelings of bitterness towards others, anger, resentment, being unhappy with yourself, lack of faith, hope, love, fear of loosing something you treasure… the list can go on.

Basically the body gets stuck in some type of survival mode. It is then difficult to re-establish to its natural balance.

Medications

Long term medications that end on “-sone” are often producing similar effects to cortisol in the body. These are drugs that suppress the immune system like prednisone, hydrocortisone.

Cortisone type drugs are used to treat pain, allergic disorders, skin conditions, ulcerative colitis, arthritis, lupus, psoriasis, or breathing disorders.

Be sure to also be aware of information on cortisone drug side effects. 

  • Osteoporosis
  • Muscle wasting
  • Hypertension
  • Hyperglycemia
  • Hyper irritability
  • Depression
  • Weakness
  • Vascular fragility including easy bruising
  • Striae or redish stripes over the lower abdomen (thinning of the skin structures)
  • Suppressed immune system, make it easier to get infections
  • Central obesity

If you feel like you are “always on” , have difficulty digesting food or feel “tired and wired”, chances are you are running the meter up on cortisol. As you can see the long term effects are not favourable for good health.

Have Hope

Don’t give up hope, however. The first step is to recognize what is stressing you out. This is more than relationships, it can be pain, inflammation, poor diet, lack of sleep, poor coping mechanisms or genetic wrinkles.

Resolution doesn’t happen overnight but can be improved on a steady course of treatment over time.  Treatment will look at things like sleep hygiene, a healthy diet, the right amount and type of exercise,  and new perspectives on managing yourself in relationships with yourself and others.

The Last “Peace”

Need more peace in your life?  Join me at Goodness Me! on Sept 19th in a presentation on Anxiety Antidotes.

 

References:

Constanzo LS. 2011. BRS Physiology Fifth Edition. Walters Kluwer|Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Philadelphia.

Hannibal KE, Bishop MD. Chronic Stress, Cortisol Dysfunction, and Pain: A Psychoneuroendocrine Rationale for Stress Management in Pain Rehabilitation. Physical Therapy. 2014;94(12):1816-1825. doi:10.2522/ptj.20130597.

Wright H. 2009. A More Excellent Way. Whitaker House. Pennsylvania.

Why wheat makes me eat…constantly

Wheat Makes Me Eat

Before I knew I had serious gluten issues, I always wondered why when I ate cereal or bread, I just couldn’t seem to stop. I always wanted more and was never really satisfied. Since I have been off gluten for more than 5 years, I can say that I can eat a salad with meat, fish or poultry with some great olive oil and be totally satisfied. What gives?

The research that I found today really zeros in on one reason why this constant and never ending craving for food can occur.

It’s not about will power

Weight management is not about will power.

It can be about the choices in the kind of food you eat.

Foods like gluten, for example can uncouple your natural mechanism to tell you that you are full.

Digested wheat gluten inhibits satiety

Leptin is a hormone released in digestion.

Leptin is responsible for sending a message to the brain that we have had enough to eat.

When leptin signals to the brain are impaired,  weight gain and obesity is often a result.

Recent research illustrates that  wheat gluten prevents leptin from binding to its own receptor, thus preventing the brain from receiving the signal that you are full.

Want to learn more information on gluten sensitivity?

If you are interested, email drlaura@forwardhealth.ca

From the heart, mind and research of Dr. Laura M. Brown, ND

 

 

Five Health Benefits of Standing Desks

Shared by Dr. Phil McAllister

Spending more of your day standing could reduce the risk of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer

6182812926_ceb3141df6_o.jpg

There was a time when standing desks were a curiosity—used by eccentrics like Hemingway, Dickens and Kierkegaard, but seldom seen inside a regular office setting.

That’s changed, in large part due to research showing that the cumulative impact of sitting all day for years is associated with a range of health problems, from obesity to diabetes to cancer. Because the average office worker spends 5 hours and 41 minutes sitting each day at his or her desk, some describe the problem with a pithy new phrase that’s undeniably catchy, if somewhat exaggerated: “Sitting is the new smoking.”

Much of this research has been spurred by James Levine, an endocrinologist at the Mayo Clinic. “The way we live now is to sit all day, occasionally punctuated by a walk from the parking lot to the office,” he recently said during a phone interview, speaking as he strolled around his living room. “The default has become to sit. We need the default to be standing.”

All this might sound suspiciously like the latest health fad, and nothing more. But a growing body of research—conducted both by Levine and other scientists—confirms that a sedentary lifestyle appears to be detrimental in the long-term.

The solution, they say, isn’t to sit for six hours at work and then head to the gym afterward, because evidence suggests that the negative effects of extended sitting can’t be countered by brief bouts of strenous exercise. The answer is incorporating standing, pacing and other forms of activity into your normal day—and standing at your desk for part of it is the easiest way of doing so. Here’s a list of some of the benefits scientists have found so far.

Reduced Risk of Obesity

Levine’s research began as an investigation into an age-old health question: why some people gain weight and others don’t. He and colleagues recruited a group of office workers who engaged in little routine exercise, put them all on an identical diet that contained about 1000 more calories than they’d been consuming previously and forbid them from changing their exercise habits. But despite the standardized diet and exercise regimens, some participants gained weight, while others stayed slim.

Eventually, using underwear stitched with sensors that measure every subtle movement, the researchers discovered the secret: the participants who weren’t gaining weight were up and walking around, on average, 2.25 more hours per day, even though all of them worked at (sitting) desks, and no one was going to the gym. “During all of our days, there are opportunities to move around substantially more,” Levine says, mentioning things as mundane as walking to a colleague’s office rather than emailing them, or taking the stairs instead of the elevator.

Failing to take advantage of these constant movement opportunities, it turns out, is closely associated with obesity. And research suggests that our conventional exercise strategy—sitting all day at work, then hitting the gym or going for a run—”makes scarcely more sense than the notion that you could counter a pack-a-day smoking habit by jogging,” as James Vlashos puts it in the New York Times. The key to reducing the risk of obesity is consistent, moderate levels of movement throughout the day.

Scientists are still investigating why this might be the case. The reduced amount of calories burned while sitting (a 2013 study found that standers burn, on average, 50 more calories per hour) is clearly involved, but there may also be metabolic changes at play, such as the body’s cells becoming less responsive to insulin, or sedentary muscles releasing lower levels of the enzyme lipoprotein lipase.

Of course, all this specifically points to danger of sitting too much, not exactly the same as the benefit of standing. But Levine believes the two are closely intertwined.

“Step one is get up. Step two is learn to get up more often. Step three is, once you’re up, move,” he says. “And what we’ve discovered is that once you’re up, you do tend to move.” Steps one and two, then, are the most important parts—and a desk that encourages you to stand at least some of the time is one of the most convenient means of doing so.

Reduced Risk of Type 2 Diabetes and Other Metabolic Problems

The detrimental health impacts of sitting—and the benefits of standing—appear to go beyond simple obesity. Some of the same studies by Levine and others have found that sitting for extended periods of time is correlated with reduced effectiveness in regulating levels of glucose in the bloodstream, part of a condition known as metabolic syndrome that dramatically increases the chance of type 2 diabetes.

A 2008 study, for instance, found that people who sat for longer periods during their day had significantly higher levels of fasting blood glucose, indicating their their cells became less responsive to insulin, with the hormone failing to trigger the absorption of glucose from the blood. A 2013 study [PDF] came to similar findings, and arrived at the conclusion that for people already at risk of developing type 2 diabetes, the amount of time spent sitting could be a more important risk factor than the amount of time spent vigorously exercising.

Reduced Risk of Cardiovascular Disease

Scientific evidence that sitting is bad for the cardiovascular system goes all the way back to the 1950s, when British researchers compared rates of heart disease in London bus drivers (who sit) and bus conductors (who stand) and found that the former group experienced far more heart attacks and other problems than the latter.

Since, scientists have found that adults who spend two more hours per day sitting have a 125 percent increased risk of health problems related to cardiovascular disease, including chest pain and heart attacks. Other work has found that men who spend more than five hours per day sitting outside of work and get limited exercise were at twice the risk of heart failure as those who exercise often and sit fewer than two hours daily outside of the office. Even when the researchers controlled for the amount of exercise, excessive sitters were still 34 percent more likely to develop heart failure than those who were standing or moving.

Reduced Risk of Cancer

A handful of studies have suggested that extended periods of sitting can be linked with a higher risk of many forms of cancer. Breast and colon cancer appear to be most influenced by physical activity (or lack thereof): a 2011 study found that prolonged sitting could be responsible for as much as 49,000 cases of breast cancer and 43,000 cases of colon cancer annually in the U.S. But the same research found that significant amounts of lung cancer (37,200 cases), prostate cancer (30,600 cases), endometrial cancer (12,000 cases) and ovarian cancer (1,800 cases) could also be related to excessive sitting.

The underlying mechanism by which sitting increases cancer risk is still unclear, but scientists have found a number of biomarkers, such as C-reactive protein, that are present in higher levels in people who sit for long periods of time. These may be tied to the development of cancer.

Lower Long-Term Mortality Risk

Because of the reduced chance of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer, a number of studies have found strong correlations between the amount of time a person spends sitting and his or her chance of dying within a given period of time.

A 2010 Australian study, for instance, found that for each extra hour participants spent sitting daily, their overall risk of dying during the study period (seven years) increased by 11 percent. A 2012 study found that if the average American reduced his or her sitting time to three hours per day, life expectancy would climb by two years.

These projects control for other factors such as diet and exercise—indicating that sitting, in isolation, can lead to a variety of health problems and increase the overall risk of death, even if you try to get exercise while you’re not sitting and eat a healthy diet. And though there are many situations besides the office in which we sit for extended periods (driving and watching TV, for instance, are at the top of the list), spending some of your time at work at a standing desk is one of the most direct solutions.

If you’re going to start doing so, most experts recommend splitting your time between standing and sitting, because standing all day can lead to back, knee or foot problems. The easiest ways of accomplishing this are either using a desk that can be raised upward or a tall chair that you can pull up to your desk when you do need to sit. It’s also important to ease into it, they say, by standing for just a few hours a day at first while your body becomes used to the strain, and move around a bit, by shifting your position, pacing, or even dancing as you work.

 

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-health-benefits-standing-desks-180950259/#6jGIujw8jDL7ydxe.99