|WikiProject Medicine / Cardiology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
A Few Things...
The biological definition of sedentary is irrelevant to the subject of this article.
The medical definition and National Health Interview Survey information need verifiable citations.
I don't know that I have the resources to track these down. JWCurtis2003 (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- the medical definition currently in the article seems very fishy to me. Nobody would seriously suggest anybody in a military boot camp, for instance, is leading a sedentary lifestyle and yet typically there is no leisure-time whatever in such circumstances.Zebulin (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- "Sedentary" currently links here to "Sedentary lifestyle" which is inappropriate when the "Sedentary" link is someplace like Redeye gaper, a fish which surely we should not criticize for its choice of lifestyle. Tempshill (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Sedentary lifestyle vs. post-industrialism
Does anyone know any sources that support the idea that the sedentary lifestyle is a result of post-industrialism? I know there's a few minor facts out there (e.g., that Amish live a pre-industrial lifestyle, and thus only sit for a half hour a day and need to consume 5000 calories per day to do their daily labour). But has anyone actually gone into detail about how the sedentary lifestyle is a result of post-industrial economy? I mean, this article seems almost to blame people for living a sedentary lifestyle, when it seems the truth is that people no longer can get any exercise from work (their main source in the past) and their neighbourhoods and cities are not conducive even to leisure exercise. In short I guess there's an opportunity to expand this article by putting forward this sort of analysis. I'm sure this isn't WP:OR or WP:SYN, and there are already books on the topic. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
relation with obesity
"It is known to contribute to obesity"
Really? Sedentary lifestyle as such does not contribute to obesity. What contributes to obesity is of course eating more than you burn. Should we remove this nonsense with no citations? - MexicanFish (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
This article is written terribly. It has plenty of uncited claims and promotes an active lifestyle. It's like it was written by a former overweight, anti-social person that just discovered life outside his front door and wants to improve the world by telling us "just how better" he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Eating more than you burn" is a two-fold idea: you can burn less (sedentary lifestyle) or eat more. For a variety of reasons, including cultural reasons, as people reduced the amount of physical effort spent in both work and non-work related activities, they didn't necessarily reduce their consumption. So yes indeed, a sedentary lifestyle can contribute to obesity. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Deep vein thrombosis
Echoing some of the above comments, when I first saw the article, I did find it rather bland and not particularly informative. Does any one have any references for the possibility that sitting inactive for long periods of time may lead to deep vein thrombosis? I am not a medical expert, so I would not wish to pursue the possibility, but I have vague recollections of news story at the start of the zeros of a teacher who developed DVT after sitting still marking for a long time. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC) As for the bit on obesity, I found that something of a truism. The way the article cites this information is to use weasel words and uncited claims - but there must be more thorough, specific, technical but still accessible resources giving evidence as to whether increase in obesity has been correlated with decrease in physical activity. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I have taken up the task of citing the claims of this article. I will remove information I am unable to verify through reliable sources. This will take a few days because I tend to work a little bit at a time SirGrant (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am advocating that we merge Couch Potato into this. The term couch potato is just a slang term for a sedentary lifestyle and isn't really encyclopedic. I just think we should have a redirect SirGrant (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Correlation is not causation ...
The information provided by this article is scientifically incorrect, because a high statistical correlation found in the source material does not mean that there is a causal connection between a sedative lifestyle and the mentioned diseases. If you are sick and suffer from diseases, of course you reduce your activity level. It is impossible to distinguish between cause and effect in correlational studies so the information that a sedative lifestyle causes or increases the likelihood of developing diseases is wrong and not supported by the studies. Example: The statistical correlation between people that lost a leg and low activity is also very high. But that does not mean that a low activity causes people to loose their legs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)