Controversies in the Science of Sedentary Behaviour and Health: Insights, Perspectives and Future Directions from the 2018 Queensland Sedentary Behaviour Think Tank

Abstract

The development in research concerning sedentary behaviour has been rapid over the past two decades. This has led to the development of evidence and views that have become more advanced, diverse and, possibly, contentious. These include the effects of standing, the breaking up of prolonged sitting and the role of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in the association between sedentary behaviour and health outcomes. The present aim is to report the views of experts (n = 21) brought together (one-day face-to-face meeting in 2018) to consider these issues and provide conclusions and recommendations for future work. Each topic was reviewed and presented by one expert followed by full group discussion, which was recorded, transcribed and analysed. The experts concluded that (a). standing may bring benefits that accrue from postural shifts. Prolonged (mainly static) standing and prolonged sitting are both bad for health; (b). ‘the best posture is the next posture’. Regularly breaking up of sitting with postural shifts and movement is vital; (c). health effects of prolonged sitting are evident even after controlling for MVPA, but high levels of MVPA can attenuate the deleterious effects of prolonged sitting depending on the health outcome of interest. Expert discussion addressed measurement, messaging and future directions.

Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Research in Indonesian Youth: A Scoping Review

“…Meanwhile, the first publication reporting on sedentary behavior in youth was found in 2004 [ 22 ]. This finding is consistent with global studies of sedentary behavior that increased sharply in the early 2000s [ 50 ] and the literature of sedentary behavior in Bangladesh, another Asian LMIC [ 46 ].…”

Changes in sedentary behaviour in European Union adults between 2002 and 2017

“…Policy development on SB prevention has received increased attention in the last decade [18]. Some general recommendations from national and international organisations began to emerge at the end of the 2000s for reducing SB, such as the example the EU Physical Activity Guidelines [37] or the Physical Activity and Health Report from the U.S. [38], and most notably the World Health Organization supporting evidence to action through the Physical Activity and Health in Europe [39].…”

“…The promotion of PA has received substantial and increasing attention globally, with myriad recommendations and plans in circulation [ 15 – 17 ]. By comparison, SB has received limited attention [ 18 ]. Previous studies showed that complying with the global recommendations of PA was insufficient to eliminate the increased risk of premature death as a consequence of a high SB (e.g., number of sitting hours) [ 3 , 19 ], unless the PA occurs at a considerable volume [ 3 , 19 ], which is difficult to achieve for most of the population.…”

Reducing sitting at work: process evaluation of the SMArT Work (Stand More At Work) intervention

“…Early epidemiological studies and meta-analyses suggested that higher levels of sedentary behaviour were associated with negative health outcomes when controlling for levels of moderate-to-vigorous or leisure-time physical activity (for example, [2,13]). However, research has suggested that high levels of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity attenuate the effects of sitting on mortality [14,15]. At the time of the development of the SMArT Work project, beliefs were more aligned with the comments emanating from the open-ended comments of participants.…”