Time Watching TV Ups Diabetes and Heart Risks

Watching TV an average of two more hours per day increases the risk of diabetes and heart disease by 20 and 15 percent, respectively. 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!


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.


Apart from working and sleeping, the thing Americans do the most is watch TV—five hours a day on average. But all that time in front of the tube may up your risk of death, according to a review in the Journal of the American Medical Association. [Anders Grøntved and Frank Hu, "Television Viewing and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes, Cardiovascular Disease, and All-Cause Mortality"]

Researchers analyzed eight previous studies looking at the effects of TV on health. Together, the studies followed more than 200,000 volunteers over about a decade of their lives, and controlled for other risk factors, like age and smoking. The take-home? For every two hours of TV per day, subjects had a 15 percent higher risk of heart disease and a 20 percent higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes. That translates to a city of a million people having 1760 extra cases of diabetes compared to a city of a million who watch two hours less TV per day.

Previous studies have associated other sedentary activities, like sitting at a desk, with health risks. But the researchers say there's something unique about TV. Not only are we not exercising, but we tend to snack while watching. The prescription, in this case, is simple, and side effects are rare: get off the couch.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe