New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Sitting Not the New Smoking for Fidgeters

Sitting for more than seven hours a day is linked to a 30 percent higher risk of death, but that association disappears among the in-place movers and shakers. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

It's a rule that's drilled into us from an early age: "Stop fidgeting." We're even hounded about it as adults. <<"Stop fidgeting. Stop fidgeting. Stop fidgeting.>> But that instruction may be misguided. Because small movements of your hands and feet may actually help counteract the negative health effects of our sedentary lifestyle. In other words, the notion that “sitting is the new smoking” may not apply if you fidget. 

Researchers in the U.K. tracked nearly 13,000 women for 12 years. The women were quizzed about their diets, smoking and drinking habits, and time spent exercising versus sitting. They were also asked a slightly unusual question for this type of study: "On a scale from 1 to 10 please indicate how much of your time you spend fidgeting." The reason? "My husband is a big fidgeter and I felt that the questions on physical activity maybe weren't getting at all of the elements of energy expenditure through movement." Janet Cade, a nutritional epidemiologist at the University of Leeds.

Adrian Hillman ©iStock.com


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


She and her colleagues found that sitting for seven plus hours a day correlated to a 30 percent higher risk of death—regardless of how active study subjects were at other times. But that association disappeared among the fidgeters. Fidgeting did not appear to lower the body-mass index, a loose measure of obesity. But Cade says it might work by improving metabolism. "We know that people who sit for a long time have abnormal glucose metabolism for example, and an increased risk of metabolic syndrome. So fidgeting might just be improving those outcomes." The finding is in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. [Gareth Hagger-Johnson et al, Sitting Time, Fidgeting, and All-Cause Mortality in the U.K. Women’s Cohort Study]

Of course you can't really train people to fidget more. "But if you are sitting for a long period of time any movement might be good. So you know, try and think about shifting your position, or get up and stretch. Or pace whilst you're on the phone. Maybe, you know, get a standing desk." And of course, if anyone tells you to stop fidgeting, you just tell them that maybe they should start.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe