User login
Sleeping beats sitting? What a new study means for your patients
Sit less, move more. Or stand more. Or sleep more.
Replacing 30 minutes of sitting a day with equal time standing or even sleeping could improve obesity markers like body weight and waist circumference, according to a new cross-sectional study investigating the impact of movement behavior on cardiometabolic health.
The findings suggest that, while higher-intensity activity may confer benefits sooner, adding more light activity or more standing, or even going to bed earlier, could improve heart health measures over time.
“Our study highlights that replacing sedentary behavior with any other behavior can be beneficial,” said study author Joanna M. Blodgett, PhD, a researcher at University College London’s Institute of Sport, Exercise and Health, and department of targeted intervention.
The study builds on a large and growing body of evidence that movement behaviors impact cardiometabolic health. Increasing physical activity to 150 minutes a week has been shown to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease by 17% and type 2 diabetes by 26%. Other studies suggest that even modest increases in physical activity can be beneficial. A prospective study published in October found that even short activity bouts of a few minutes a day may lower risks for heart attack, stroke, and early death.
In the new study, researchers analyzed data from six studies and more than 15,000 participants, ranking behaviors according to their association with heart health. Moderate-to-vigorous activity was linked to the greatest benefit, followed by light activity, standing, sleeping, and finally – dead last on the list – sitting.
A thigh-worn device tracked participants’ activity throughout the day, and six measures gauged heart health: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, HDL cholesterol, total-cholesterol-to-HDL ratio, triglycerides, and glycated hemoglobin.
Researchers modeled what would happen if people swapped various amounts of one activity for another every day for a week. Replacing just 4-13 minutes of sitting with moderate to vigorous activity improved heart health markers.
The cardiovascular demands of regular intense activity like running, cycling, dancing, or playing sports – even in small bouts – strengthen the heart and improve blood flow throughout the body, Dr. Blodgett said. “This can lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and resting heart rate.”
Even if adding moderate to vigorous activity is not an option, the findings suggest that people can still see benefits by replacing sitting with virtually any other activity – walking, standing, even sleeping.
Limitations
Because the study was observational, results can’t be used to infer causality.
“We cannot directly lean on the study results to guide prescriptions for particular exercise or lifestyle changes,” said Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist with the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not involved with the study. An interventional trial would be needed to confirm the findings.
The finding that sleep was better for participants than sitting is a good example. The benefits of replacing sitting with sleep were “clear” for adiposity measures like BMI and waist circumference, but negligible for blood markers such as cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood glucose, Dr. Blodgett said.
One explanation: “The negative impact of sitting on these obesity measures is likely due to related unhealthy behaviors like snacking rather than the physiological benefits of sleep itself,” Dr. Blodgett said.
What’s more, study participants were relatively young, healthy, and active. The average age was 54, and they averaged nearly 8 hours of sleep, 10 hours of sitting, 3 hours of standing, 1.5 hours of light activity, and more than an hour of moderate to vigorous activity per day. So it’s difficult to draw conclusions about patients who don’t fit those metrics.
Impact on patient care
That said, the results could help tailor recommendations for patients, Dr. Blodgett said.
If a patient is struggling to exercise or is unable to exercise because of health or ability restrictions, you could help them find ways to add a lighter activity to their day, such as taking the stairs or walking briskly to catch the bus. Even swapping a regular desk for a standing one, or going to bed 30 minutes earlier, could be a more practical and effective suggestion.
More than that: The research could be used to educate patients on the power of small changes. It shows that shifting daily habits even in small ways can make a difference, and people who are the least active stand to benefit the most.
You can also remind patients that moderate or vigorous activity doesn’t need to happen at the gym. It could be lawn work, taking a walk, or moving heavy boxes. In fact, many activities can be “moderate” or even “vigorous” depending on the effort put into them.
Share this rule of thumb: “An activity is classified as moderate intensity if you can talk but not sing while doing it, and an activity is generally considered vigorous intensity if you can’t say more than a few words without stopping to breathe,” Dr. Blodgett said.
The study also has implications for the potential of wearable activity trackers to monitor progress. Combining objective activity data with results from studies like this, and longer prospective studies, could help inform more helpful advice.
“Ultimately, this research helps move us closer to more personalized guidance of how changing behaviors can improve your health,” Dr. Blodgett said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sit less, move more. Or stand more. Or sleep more.
Replacing 30 minutes of sitting a day with equal time standing or even sleeping could improve obesity markers like body weight and waist circumference, according to a new cross-sectional study investigating the impact of movement behavior on cardiometabolic health.
The findings suggest that, while higher-intensity activity may confer benefits sooner, adding more light activity or more standing, or even going to bed earlier, could improve heart health measures over time.
“Our study highlights that replacing sedentary behavior with any other behavior can be beneficial,” said study author Joanna M. Blodgett, PhD, a researcher at University College London’s Institute of Sport, Exercise and Health, and department of targeted intervention.
The study builds on a large and growing body of evidence that movement behaviors impact cardiometabolic health. Increasing physical activity to 150 minutes a week has been shown to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease by 17% and type 2 diabetes by 26%. Other studies suggest that even modest increases in physical activity can be beneficial. A prospective study published in October found that even short activity bouts of a few minutes a day may lower risks for heart attack, stroke, and early death.
In the new study, researchers analyzed data from six studies and more than 15,000 participants, ranking behaviors according to their association with heart health. Moderate-to-vigorous activity was linked to the greatest benefit, followed by light activity, standing, sleeping, and finally – dead last on the list – sitting.
A thigh-worn device tracked participants’ activity throughout the day, and six measures gauged heart health: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, HDL cholesterol, total-cholesterol-to-HDL ratio, triglycerides, and glycated hemoglobin.
Researchers modeled what would happen if people swapped various amounts of one activity for another every day for a week. Replacing just 4-13 minutes of sitting with moderate to vigorous activity improved heart health markers.
The cardiovascular demands of regular intense activity like running, cycling, dancing, or playing sports – even in small bouts – strengthen the heart and improve blood flow throughout the body, Dr. Blodgett said. “This can lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and resting heart rate.”
Even if adding moderate to vigorous activity is not an option, the findings suggest that people can still see benefits by replacing sitting with virtually any other activity – walking, standing, even sleeping.
Limitations
Because the study was observational, results can’t be used to infer causality.
“We cannot directly lean on the study results to guide prescriptions for particular exercise or lifestyle changes,” said Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist with the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not involved with the study. An interventional trial would be needed to confirm the findings.
The finding that sleep was better for participants than sitting is a good example. The benefits of replacing sitting with sleep were “clear” for adiposity measures like BMI and waist circumference, but negligible for blood markers such as cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood glucose, Dr. Blodgett said.
One explanation: “The negative impact of sitting on these obesity measures is likely due to related unhealthy behaviors like snacking rather than the physiological benefits of sleep itself,” Dr. Blodgett said.
What’s more, study participants were relatively young, healthy, and active. The average age was 54, and they averaged nearly 8 hours of sleep, 10 hours of sitting, 3 hours of standing, 1.5 hours of light activity, and more than an hour of moderate to vigorous activity per day. So it’s difficult to draw conclusions about patients who don’t fit those metrics.
Impact on patient care
That said, the results could help tailor recommendations for patients, Dr. Blodgett said.
If a patient is struggling to exercise or is unable to exercise because of health or ability restrictions, you could help them find ways to add a lighter activity to their day, such as taking the stairs or walking briskly to catch the bus. Even swapping a regular desk for a standing one, or going to bed 30 minutes earlier, could be a more practical and effective suggestion.
More than that: The research could be used to educate patients on the power of small changes. It shows that shifting daily habits even in small ways can make a difference, and people who are the least active stand to benefit the most.
You can also remind patients that moderate or vigorous activity doesn’t need to happen at the gym. It could be lawn work, taking a walk, or moving heavy boxes. In fact, many activities can be “moderate” or even “vigorous” depending on the effort put into them.
Share this rule of thumb: “An activity is classified as moderate intensity if you can talk but not sing while doing it, and an activity is generally considered vigorous intensity if you can’t say more than a few words without stopping to breathe,” Dr. Blodgett said.
The study also has implications for the potential of wearable activity trackers to monitor progress. Combining objective activity data with results from studies like this, and longer prospective studies, could help inform more helpful advice.
“Ultimately, this research helps move us closer to more personalized guidance of how changing behaviors can improve your health,” Dr. Blodgett said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sit less, move more. Or stand more. Or sleep more.
Replacing 30 minutes of sitting a day with equal time standing or even sleeping could improve obesity markers like body weight and waist circumference, according to a new cross-sectional study investigating the impact of movement behavior on cardiometabolic health.
The findings suggest that, while higher-intensity activity may confer benefits sooner, adding more light activity or more standing, or even going to bed earlier, could improve heart health measures over time.
“Our study highlights that replacing sedentary behavior with any other behavior can be beneficial,” said study author Joanna M. Blodgett, PhD, a researcher at University College London’s Institute of Sport, Exercise and Health, and department of targeted intervention.
The study builds on a large and growing body of evidence that movement behaviors impact cardiometabolic health. Increasing physical activity to 150 minutes a week has been shown to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease by 17% and type 2 diabetes by 26%. Other studies suggest that even modest increases in physical activity can be beneficial. A prospective study published in October found that even short activity bouts of a few minutes a day may lower risks for heart attack, stroke, and early death.
In the new study, researchers analyzed data from six studies and more than 15,000 participants, ranking behaviors according to their association with heart health. Moderate-to-vigorous activity was linked to the greatest benefit, followed by light activity, standing, sleeping, and finally – dead last on the list – sitting.
A thigh-worn device tracked participants’ activity throughout the day, and six measures gauged heart health: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, HDL cholesterol, total-cholesterol-to-HDL ratio, triglycerides, and glycated hemoglobin.
Researchers modeled what would happen if people swapped various amounts of one activity for another every day for a week. Replacing just 4-13 minutes of sitting with moderate to vigorous activity improved heart health markers.
The cardiovascular demands of regular intense activity like running, cycling, dancing, or playing sports – even in small bouts – strengthen the heart and improve blood flow throughout the body, Dr. Blodgett said. “This can lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and resting heart rate.”
Even if adding moderate to vigorous activity is not an option, the findings suggest that people can still see benefits by replacing sitting with virtually any other activity – walking, standing, even sleeping.
Limitations
Because the study was observational, results can’t be used to infer causality.
“We cannot directly lean on the study results to guide prescriptions for particular exercise or lifestyle changes,” said Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist with the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not involved with the study. An interventional trial would be needed to confirm the findings.
The finding that sleep was better for participants than sitting is a good example. The benefits of replacing sitting with sleep were “clear” for adiposity measures like BMI and waist circumference, but negligible for blood markers such as cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood glucose, Dr. Blodgett said.
One explanation: “The negative impact of sitting on these obesity measures is likely due to related unhealthy behaviors like snacking rather than the physiological benefits of sleep itself,” Dr. Blodgett said.
What’s more, study participants were relatively young, healthy, and active. The average age was 54, and they averaged nearly 8 hours of sleep, 10 hours of sitting, 3 hours of standing, 1.5 hours of light activity, and more than an hour of moderate to vigorous activity per day. So it’s difficult to draw conclusions about patients who don’t fit those metrics.
Impact on patient care
That said, the results could help tailor recommendations for patients, Dr. Blodgett said.
If a patient is struggling to exercise or is unable to exercise because of health or ability restrictions, you could help them find ways to add a lighter activity to their day, such as taking the stairs or walking briskly to catch the bus. Even swapping a regular desk for a standing one, or going to bed 30 minutes earlier, could be a more practical and effective suggestion.
More than that: The research could be used to educate patients on the power of small changes. It shows that shifting daily habits even in small ways can make a difference, and people who are the least active stand to benefit the most.
You can also remind patients that moderate or vigorous activity doesn’t need to happen at the gym. It could be lawn work, taking a walk, or moving heavy boxes. In fact, many activities can be “moderate” or even “vigorous” depending on the effort put into them.
Share this rule of thumb: “An activity is classified as moderate intensity if you can talk but not sing while doing it, and an activity is generally considered vigorous intensity if you can’t say more than a few words without stopping to breathe,” Dr. Blodgett said.
The study also has implications for the potential of wearable activity trackers to monitor progress. Combining objective activity data with results from studies like this, and longer prospective studies, could help inform more helpful advice.
“Ultimately, this research helps move us closer to more personalized guidance of how changing behaviors can improve your health,” Dr. Blodgett said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
AI flagged skin cancer with near-perfect accuracy, in UK study
. AI detected more than 99% of all skin cancers.
The researchers tested the AI by integrating it into a clinical diagnosis process – anticipating a future in which AI helps doctors catch skin cancer faster and triage patients.
Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States; one in five 5 Americans develop skin cancer by age 70. With melanoma, the deadliest skin cancer, the 5-year survival rate is better than 99% if caught early, though only about three-quarters of melanomas are caught at this stage.
Amid rising skin cancer rates come concerns that the number of dermatologists in the workforce isn’t keeping pace. That may be why the average wait time for a dermatology appointment is trending up – in 2022, it reached 34.5 days.
The study, which was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress recently and has not yet been published, involved 6,900 patients in the United Kingdom with suspected skin cancer. The patients had been referred by their primary care physicians. The researchers took images of the suspicious areas and uploaded them to the AI software. The AI’s assessment was then shared with a dermatologist.
“Note that the diagnosis issued by the AI was not hidden from the dermatologist doing the second assessment,” said lead researcher Kashini Andrew, MBBS, a dermatologist and specialist registrar at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust.
Dr. Andrew acknowledged that this may have influenced the dermatologist’s opinion. But that’s the vision of how doctors could use this tool.
The AI caught 59 of 59 melanomas and 189 of 190 total skin cancers (99.5%). (The one case that the AI missed was caught by the dermatologist.) It also flagged 541 of 585 precancerous lesions (92.5%). This represented a big improvement from a 2021 version of the model, which detected 86% of melanomas, 84% of all skin cancers, and 54% of precancerous lesions.
Over the 10-month period of the study, the system saved more than 1,000 face-to-face consultations, freeing dermatologists’ time to catch more cancers and serve more patients.
Limitations
The patients in the study were from “one hospital in a single region of the UK,” and the sample was not large enough to allow broad statements to be made about the use of AI in dermatology, Dr. Andrew said.
But it can open the conversation. Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Stanford (Calif.) University who has studied the pros and cons of AI in medicine, had some concerns. For one thing, doctors can gather more in-depth information during an in-person exam than AI can glean from a photo, Dr. Daneshjou noted. They can examine skin texture, gather patient history, and take photos with special lighting and magnification.
And the AI needs to get better at ruling out malignancy, Dr. Daneshjou said. In this study, the AI identified 75% of benign lesions, a decline from the earlier version. The researchers noted in the abstract that this is a potential trade-off for increased sensitivity.
“[Unnecessary] biopsies can clog up the health care system, cost money, and cause stress and scarring,” said Dr. Daneshjou. “You don’t want to increase the burden of that.”
Still, if AI software such as the kind used in the study proves just as accurate in larger, more diverse sample sizes, then it could be a powerful tool for triage, Dr. Daneshjou said. “If AI gets particularly good at finding malignancy and also ruling it out, that would be a win.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
. AI detected more than 99% of all skin cancers.
The researchers tested the AI by integrating it into a clinical diagnosis process – anticipating a future in which AI helps doctors catch skin cancer faster and triage patients.
Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States; one in five 5 Americans develop skin cancer by age 70. With melanoma, the deadliest skin cancer, the 5-year survival rate is better than 99% if caught early, though only about three-quarters of melanomas are caught at this stage.
Amid rising skin cancer rates come concerns that the number of dermatologists in the workforce isn’t keeping pace. That may be why the average wait time for a dermatology appointment is trending up – in 2022, it reached 34.5 days.
The study, which was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress recently and has not yet been published, involved 6,900 patients in the United Kingdom with suspected skin cancer. The patients had been referred by their primary care physicians. The researchers took images of the suspicious areas and uploaded them to the AI software. The AI’s assessment was then shared with a dermatologist.
“Note that the diagnosis issued by the AI was not hidden from the dermatologist doing the second assessment,” said lead researcher Kashini Andrew, MBBS, a dermatologist and specialist registrar at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust.
Dr. Andrew acknowledged that this may have influenced the dermatologist’s opinion. But that’s the vision of how doctors could use this tool.
The AI caught 59 of 59 melanomas and 189 of 190 total skin cancers (99.5%). (The one case that the AI missed was caught by the dermatologist.) It also flagged 541 of 585 precancerous lesions (92.5%). This represented a big improvement from a 2021 version of the model, which detected 86% of melanomas, 84% of all skin cancers, and 54% of precancerous lesions.
Over the 10-month period of the study, the system saved more than 1,000 face-to-face consultations, freeing dermatologists’ time to catch more cancers and serve more patients.
Limitations
The patients in the study were from “one hospital in a single region of the UK,” and the sample was not large enough to allow broad statements to be made about the use of AI in dermatology, Dr. Andrew said.
But it can open the conversation. Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Stanford (Calif.) University who has studied the pros and cons of AI in medicine, had some concerns. For one thing, doctors can gather more in-depth information during an in-person exam than AI can glean from a photo, Dr. Daneshjou noted. They can examine skin texture, gather patient history, and take photos with special lighting and magnification.
And the AI needs to get better at ruling out malignancy, Dr. Daneshjou said. In this study, the AI identified 75% of benign lesions, a decline from the earlier version. The researchers noted in the abstract that this is a potential trade-off for increased sensitivity.
“[Unnecessary] biopsies can clog up the health care system, cost money, and cause stress and scarring,” said Dr. Daneshjou. “You don’t want to increase the burden of that.”
Still, if AI software such as the kind used in the study proves just as accurate in larger, more diverse sample sizes, then it could be a powerful tool for triage, Dr. Daneshjou said. “If AI gets particularly good at finding malignancy and also ruling it out, that would be a win.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
. AI detected more than 99% of all skin cancers.
The researchers tested the AI by integrating it into a clinical diagnosis process – anticipating a future in which AI helps doctors catch skin cancer faster and triage patients.
Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States; one in five 5 Americans develop skin cancer by age 70. With melanoma, the deadliest skin cancer, the 5-year survival rate is better than 99% if caught early, though only about three-quarters of melanomas are caught at this stage.
Amid rising skin cancer rates come concerns that the number of dermatologists in the workforce isn’t keeping pace. That may be why the average wait time for a dermatology appointment is trending up – in 2022, it reached 34.5 days.
The study, which was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress recently and has not yet been published, involved 6,900 patients in the United Kingdom with suspected skin cancer. The patients had been referred by their primary care physicians. The researchers took images of the suspicious areas and uploaded them to the AI software. The AI’s assessment was then shared with a dermatologist.
“Note that the diagnosis issued by the AI was not hidden from the dermatologist doing the second assessment,” said lead researcher Kashini Andrew, MBBS, a dermatologist and specialist registrar at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust.
Dr. Andrew acknowledged that this may have influenced the dermatologist’s opinion. But that’s the vision of how doctors could use this tool.
The AI caught 59 of 59 melanomas and 189 of 190 total skin cancers (99.5%). (The one case that the AI missed was caught by the dermatologist.) It also flagged 541 of 585 precancerous lesions (92.5%). This represented a big improvement from a 2021 version of the model, which detected 86% of melanomas, 84% of all skin cancers, and 54% of precancerous lesions.
Over the 10-month period of the study, the system saved more than 1,000 face-to-face consultations, freeing dermatologists’ time to catch more cancers and serve more patients.
Limitations
The patients in the study were from “one hospital in a single region of the UK,” and the sample was not large enough to allow broad statements to be made about the use of AI in dermatology, Dr. Andrew said.
But it can open the conversation. Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Stanford (Calif.) University who has studied the pros and cons of AI in medicine, had some concerns. For one thing, doctors can gather more in-depth information during an in-person exam than AI can glean from a photo, Dr. Daneshjou noted. They can examine skin texture, gather patient history, and take photos with special lighting and magnification.
And the AI needs to get better at ruling out malignancy, Dr. Daneshjou said. In this study, the AI identified 75% of benign lesions, a decline from the earlier version. The researchers noted in the abstract that this is a potential trade-off for increased sensitivity.
“[Unnecessary] biopsies can clog up the health care system, cost money, and cause stress and scarring,” said Dr. Daneshjou. “You don’t want to increase the burden of that.”
Still, if AI software such as the kind used in the study proves just as accurate in larger, more diverse sample sizes, then it could be a powerful tool for triage, Dr. Daneshjou said. “If AI gets particularly good at finding malignancy and also ruling it out, that would be a win.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS