It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


(More TV Viewing = Increased Risk of Death + Heart Disease) - study

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:07 PM
This is an interesting study...

On the one hand, one can say that obviously TV viewing time is time not spent in health-preserving's intuitive, duh...but on the other hand, this study makes it seem like there's more to it than that...

The link is to article was originally published in the International Journal of Epidemiology dated June 23, 2010, the authors are Katrien Wijndaele, Søren Brage, Hervé Besson, Kay-Tee Khaw, Stephen J Sharp, Robert Luben, Nicholas J Wareham and Ulf Ekelund...

(I'm just going to cite from the abstract + introduction + discussion on through for the rest such as methods, results, references etc.)...

Television viewing time independently predicts all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: the EPIC Norfolk Study

...Television viewing (TV), a highly prevalent behaviour, is associated with higher cardiovascular risk independently of physical activity. The relationship with mortality, however, is relatively unknown.

...We examined the prospective relationship between TV time and all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality in a population-based cohort [The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), Norfolk] of 13 197 men and women [age [SD (standard deviation)]: 61.5 ± 9.0 years]. Participants were free from stroke, myocardial infarction and cancer at baseline in 1998–2000 and were followed up for death ascertainment until 2009 (9.5 ± 1.6 years). TV time, total physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE), education level, smoking status, alcohol consumption, anti-hypertensive and lipid-lowering medication use, participant and family history of disease and total energy intake were self-reported; height and weight were measured by standardized procedures. Hazard ratios (HRs) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for mortality were estimated per 1-h/day increase in TV.

...Each 1-h/day increase in TV time was associated with increased hazard of all-cause (HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.01–1.09; 1270 deaths) and cardiovascular (HR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.01–1.15; 373 deaths), but not cancer mortality (HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.98–1.10; 570 deaths). This was independent of gender, age, education, smoking, alcohol, medication, diabetes history, family history of cardiovascular disease and cancer, body mass index (BMI) and PAEE. They were similar when stratified by gender, age, education, BMI and PAEE. The population-attributable fraction for all-cause mortality comparing the highest TV tertile (>3.6 h/day) with the lowest ( extra DIV

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:09 PM
I do not watch tv, so i do not know, but i may have bad heart so the study is useless in the big scene of things.

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:17 PM
Okay, continuing...

Potential pathways linking TV time to all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities are likely to be diverse and need further exploration. Some possible mechanisms were examined within the current study. First of all, extensive adjustment for PAEE diminishes the likelihood that our results can be explained by displacement of (even low intensity) physical activity. Secondly, as previously suggested, high exposure to high-caloric food advertisements increases (unconscious) snacking and the overall amount of food consumed. However, the effect of TV time on mortality in our study was independent of total energy intake. Given the amount of measurement error usually associated with self-reported dietary intake, we cannot exclude residual confounding by dietary intake. Our results were, however, independent of overall adiposity (BMI). In contrast, central obesity (i.e. waist circumference) might have a mediating role between TV time and mortality, although the associations were only marginally non-significant after adjustment for this variable. Causal inference cannot be made, however, about the association between TV time and all other variables measured at baseline. Higher levels of adiposity may also lead to increased TV time, as recently shown for objectively measured total sedentary time. Other pathways include intermediate cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors previously suggested to be independently associated with TV time. Current and future studies examining pathophysiological processes that are specific for sedentary behaviours and not just the effect of absence of physical activity are an important and emerging area of research, which may support the current epidemiological evidence. One of these biological processes, shown in animal models, is the acute drop in skeletal muscle lipoprotein lipase activity caused by muscle inactivity (absence of muscle contractions) and resulting in disruption of triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol metabolism. Consistently, observations in free-living humans by objective monitoring of body movement suggested that regular interruptions in sedentary time are beneficially associated with level of triglycerides, and urge the need for future epidemiological and experimental studies further exploring these findings.

The present study has several strengths. The large population-based sample enabled us to control for potential reverse causality by excluding participants with relevant health conditions at baseline and by additionally excluding those who died within the first 2 years of follow-up. Furthermore, we were able to adjust for non-categorized overall PAEE and not just (categorized) time spent in leisure, or moderate to vigorous physical activity, minimizing residual confounding. In addition to previously demonstrated criterion validity, our PAEE measure has previously also been shown to predict cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in this cohort. We also adjusted our analyses for several relevant covariates, including energy intake. However, the following study limitations should also be highlighted. First, TV time was self-reported. Measurement error may have biased the associations observed towards the null, leading to an underestimation of the true associations. Furthermore, as TV time was only measured at baseline, changes in this behaviour might additionally have caused misclassification and, therefore, attenuation of the associations found. The self-report and categorical nature of some covariates may have resulted in residual confounding. Some confounding might still exist for other non-measured psychosocial determinants of health, such as social network interaction/loneliness, which might be correlated with TV time, especially in older individuals. Finally, as we excluded participants with baseline chronic disease to minimize the possibility of reverse causality and increase internal validity, the associations found are relative to this cohort of healthy middle-aged Caucasians, and may not generalize to other populations. Large prospective studies, using repeated measurements with longer duration of follow-up and preferably using objective measures of physical activity and sedentary time, are warranted to extend the present results and confirm dose–response effects and indicators of population health risk on different types of mortality in different populations.

In conclusion, in this population-based cohort of middle-aged Caucasians, higher levels of TV time increased the risk for mortality from all causes and CVD, independently of physical activity levels. Given the high prevalence of excessive TV watching, resulting in a substantial PAF, these results indicate the importance of public health recommendations aimed at decreasing TV time and possibly overall sedentary behaviour. These recommendations should be in addition to the established public health recommendations for physical activity.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Now see, the interesting part is where it says "independently of physical activity levels" that seems to imply that if you run five miles a day, but watch five hours of TV, you are going to be more likely to die this year than your other buddy who also runs five miles a day but watches zero how I am reading the implications of this study...Which is kinda interesting, no?

[edit on 6-7-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:57 PM
Another study shows that if you read about how more likely you are to die from watching tv ,brushing your teeth(
having a shower(
etc ,you are more likely to die.

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 07:03 PM
reply to post by 12voltz

I am going to go brush my tooth right now...I keep it in a drawer, for old times sake...some days I take it out and look at it, but I have been rather neglecting it lately...

And I already fear showering, because the water is fluoridated...I just take sponge baths in my spit...

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 07:24 PM
Maybe I missed it, but I never saw why tv can cause these health problems. I don't watch tv, but I have it on all day on MSNBC in case something happens (breaking news). I'm usually on my laptop. I've been doing this for years. I'm disabled so I'm in a reclinig position most of the day, but I do get up and walk about the house or go outside and work in my flower gardens.

I just went through a bevy of test the last two months and although I found I am diabetic and have high colesterol, I have no plaque or heart problems. So what's up with the tv?

Good topic.

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 07:40 PM
reply to post by darkelf

Yeah I don't see why the TV should do it either, if you have an otherwise high activity level, why should it matter...but evidently/seemingly it is correlated with increased risk of death, the other variables being equal...The study does mention some possible mechanisms, but just as directions for further research, it's not proving anything...

It seems like this increased risk of death correlated with increased TV time is relatively a new finding, that this study itself (assuming its results hold up) is kinda it says in the second sentence of the quoted portion
"The relationship with mortality is, however, relatively unknown" - i.e. prior to this study (which does seem big, at least), the correlation was not established in the literature...

[edit on 6-7-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:15 AM
Correlation does is not cause.

First, TV time was self-reported. Measurement error may have biased the associations observed towards the null, leading to an underestimation of the true associations. Furthermore, as TV time was only measured at baseline, changes in this behaviour might additionally have caused misclassification and, therefore, attenuation of the associations found. The self-report and categorical nature of some covariates may have resulted in residual confounding.

The above is exactly why observational studies that put stock into self-reported data are hardly definitive and, if anything, simply display associations.....and many times very, very weak ones.

With that said, however, two things come to mind here:

1) How many people use television as a "get-away" from real life? Or, does stress from one's job or marriage or financial obligations tend to lead to increased TV viewing?

If so, the correlation absolutely makes sense.

Individuals that are stressed (and depressed), for multiple different socioeconomic reasons, seek relief via consumption of television. Though television has no direct correlation with Heart disease mortality, increased TV exposure could be indicative of a stressful environment, one that elevates cortisol, oxidative stress and other atherogenic factors.

2) Though total energy intake was reported, caloric quality was not. And snacks tend to be the food of choice while lounging in front of the tube. Chips, dips, sodas and popcorn, and other atherogenic foods, are commonly consumed as the center piece of a late night watch party.


posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:47 AM
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

They did state that the results were independent of overall adiposity (BMI) that kind of finesses the issue of self-report on food intake, since they can measure the BMI objectively...

But it is an interesting question, as to how accurately people can report their TV viewing time...but then also you wonder whether people would tend to be inaccurate in a certain direction - such as would introduce a false correlation into the data - or whether there would be random general inaccuracies that would tend to cancel each other out...but they do have an okay-large sample size, in my view...

But for sure it's just one study, and any good study raises a whole bunch of other questions...and it is only kinda interesting, to my taste...anyways, there you go...

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 02:09 AM

Originally posted by andy1033
I do not watch tv, so i do not know, but i may have bad heart so the study is useless in the big scene of things.

Andy. I've heard you make comments about your personal circumstances and then attempt to discredit studies because it contradicts your personal experiences. Don't you think this may be .. I don't know, INCREDIBLY self centered
What I'm trying to say is that your one instance compared to studies of many participants doesn't in any way negate the findings. That's an entirely illogical stance.

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 02:19 AM
reply to post by nine-eyed-eel

I can think of a couple of reasons. One being that the way t.v. programming is these days with fast cgi everywhere, it increases the dopamine levels in the brain. Generally speaking, anything that increases dopamine lowers serotonin. Dopamine helps with focus, while serotonin calms us down. So basically it could be causing excessive anxiety and speeding up the cardiovascular system.

Another one is that a lot of programming is immoral trash, iimo. Now I know a lot of people here like to say that violent programming isn't linked to increased aggressive behavior and whatnot, but the studies prove otherwise. Being overly aggressive in general will lower one's lifespan. It causes the body to enter fight or flight response, and adrenaline is pumped throughout one's system.

The easiest ways to go gray headed early on in life is be overly aggressive 24/7, be anxious all the time, and be nutritionally deprived. Watching the tube a lot will probably cause the first two, and the third comes along from the average U.S. citizen eating a junked up diet.

Luckily, I haven't had cable/sat in over 5 years, and I eat a whole foods diet
Still, I did go through some traumatic experiences early on in my adult life and worried a lot about some things, so actually have gray hairs coming in at age 27. Sucks, but it's not yet noticeable. Only about 30 hairs that I pluck out from time to time.

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 02:54 AM
reply to post by unityemissions

This is just pure speculation on my part...but I do think, just based on my anecdotal life experience, that there is a lot of variation in the human response to (hatred/stress/violence/"negative-emotions"/aggression/etc.)...I think they might shorten the lifespan of most persons, but I do think there is a whole other cohort of persons who thrive on all that stuff, who seek out trouble and difficulty, and who would wither and die much faster in a normally-beneficial atmosphere of joyous repose...they can't stand it...

Like I say, I don't have a study to support this contention...this is just my own interpretation of things I have personally observed...just thinking out loud, really...

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:11 AM
reply to post by nine-eyed-eel

I'm aware of your official diagnosis from another post, and agree with you. I see that you've added me as a friend, and also note that you've been nothing but respectful on this board. For this reason, I hold nothing against you, although you may have seen posts of mine which state otherwise towards those of your similar "pathology".

I have seen a study which shows these certain people to have an overall shortened lifespan than the average individual. I have no clue if it's because of their propensity for chaotic/destructive behavior or not, though suspect it to be part of the cause. I do understand the need for chaos at times, and can see how in people who have an exaggerated desire for it, not being able to quench their thirst could lead to decay. I hold the view that pedophiles should have the right to jerk it to kiddie cartoon porn, just like I would think chaotic and aggressively inclined should be able to release in non-criminal ways like watching violent programming, listening to death metal, or whatever else floats their boat.

I have a somewhat difficult time accepting all of a certain group of people because I understand the most successful of them cause an ungodly amount of destruction towards humanity, though at the same time have compassion for them because they were simply born this way. Who am I to judge someone for how they were born? I admit the struggle continues on internally with me, but do think eventually I'll accept what is and get on with life.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by unityemissions]

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:41 AM
reply to post by unityemissions

Good call, I was thinking of psychopaths, as well as adrenaline-junkies, mountain-climbers, certain military men, various extreme sports types, hard-driving business men, "drama queens", and certain convicts and others that you couldn't call psychopaths exactly but more like emotional-intensity-devotees...

One reason psychopaths die quicker than normals is because they are not as risk-averse as normals, so they tend to "play in traffic" in a bunch of have to separate out that factor from the idea of stress being metabolically detrimental in their specific instances, is my thinking...

[edit on 7-7-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]

new topics

top topics


log in