Sitting behaviour is not associated with incident diabetes over 13 years: the Whitehall II cohort study

Abstract

WHAT ARE THE NEW FINDINGS The epidemiological literature on sitting and incident diabetes is very scant and rarely acknowledges the confounding role of adiposity  Occupational, non-TV leisure time at home, and total non-TV sitting were not associated with incident diabetes risk over 13 years of follow-up  TV time and total sitting were associated with diabetes but once baseline body mass index was taken into account these associations were attenuated HOW MIGHT IT IMPACT ON CLINICAL PRACTICE IN THE NEAR FUTURE Our finding provide little support for developing interventions that specifically target sitting to reduce diabetes risk. The weak evidence for associations we found may be partly due to the protective effect of relatively high amounts of daily walking and other moderate to vigorous physical activity in this cohort.

Association of total sedentary behaviour and television viewing with risk of overweight/obesity, type 2 diabetes and hypertension: A dose–response meta‐analysis

“…Eight articles reporting more than one health outcome were treated as independent studies . Among these studies, 21 studies (six cohort and 15 cross‐sectional studies) examined the association between total sedentary behaviour and overweight/obesity, 23 studies (13 cohort and 10 cross‐sectional studies) examined the association between total sedentary behaviour and type 2 diabetes, and 14 studies (one cohort and 13 cross‐sectional studies) examined the association between total sedentary behaviour and hypertension . Ten studies were conducted in North America, two in South America, nine in Australia, 18 in Europe, seven in Asia, and two in other regions .…”

“…Eight articles reporting more than one health outcome were treated as independent studies. [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] Among these studies, 21 studies (six cohort and 15 cross-sectional studies) examined the association between total sedentary behaviour and overweight/obesity, 32-52 23 studies (13 cohort and 10 cross-sectional studies) examined the association between total sedentary behaviour and type 2 diabetes, [28][29][30][31][32][33]35,[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68] and 14 studies (one cohort and 13 cross-sectional studies) examined the association between total sedentary behaviour and hypertension. 27 Research and Quality scale for cross-sectional studies, which indicated that the included studies were of high quality (Table S3A,B in Appendix S1).…”

“…-31,33-35,69-74 Ten studies were conducted in North America,27,32,34,39,49,53,58,62,65,73 two in South America,67,68 nine in Australia,30,31,[42][43][44][45]50,64,70 18 in Europe,29,33,36,37,40,41,46,47,51,[54][55][56]60,63,66,69,71,72 seven in Asia,28,35,38,48,52,57,74 and two in other regions 59,61. Total sedentary behaviour was objectively assessed in five studies using accelerometers,61,65,66,…”

Direct healthcare costs of sedentary behaviour in the UK

“…The proportion of cases in the highest reported category of sedentary behaviour was divided by the proportion of people at baseline in the highest category to produce an adjustment factor. For example, Stamatakis et al 12 reported that 34.1% of all study participants and 38.3% of diabetes cases were sedentary at baseline. The adjustment factor was 1.12 (38.3/34.1).…”

P value functions: An underused method to present research results and to promote quantitative reasoning

“…Representation of the misleading dichotomous impression conveyed by a single 95% confidence interval . The 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio (HR) obtained by Stamatakis et al comparing incident type 2 diabetes among the group with the highest amount of sitting time versus the lowest. The black dot denotes the point estimate (HR = 1.19), and the vertical dashed line denotes the null value (HR = 1)…”