The findings reported by Li et al. (1) in this issue of Diabetes Care are a welcome contribution to the body of evidence informing type 2 diabetes prevention. They focus on sedentary behavior (put simply, too much sitting), which has adverse health consequences that are distinct from those of too little exercise (2). These new findings, from a prospective study with long-term follow-up of 475,502 adults with 18,619 type 2 diabetes cases, represent strong evidence pointing to causality in the relationships of sedentary behavior with the development of type 2 diabetes. To this end, the study by Li et al. has strengths of method and analytical approach, employing measures of both physical activity and sedentary behavior as exposures, and examining their interrelationships as predictors of the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes over an 11-year median follow-up interval. Importantly, their analyses used iso-temporal substitution methods, which allow statistical estimation of the benefits of reallocating time in one behavior for time in another behavior. Although iso-temporal substitution has previously been used to model the putative impacts of substituting physical activity for sedentary time, such evidence has come predominantly from cross-sectional studies (3).

Sedentary behaviors—primarily television (TV) viewing and other screen use, time sitting in cars, and desk-based working—occupy the largest proportion of adults’ waking hours. Over the past 10 years, sedentary time, characterized by a sitting posture in the absence of skeletal muscle contractile activity (4,5), has increased by ∼1 h/day (6). The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has further exacerbated the pervasiveness of prolonged periods of time spent sitting in people’s lives (7). The widespread implementation of infection-risk mitigation strategies has seen daily time spent sitting increase by a staggering 3 h/day (8). Because sedentary behavior displaces time spent engaging in physical activity, the only countermeasure to addressing the health hazards of sedentary behavior must be some form of physical activity or movement behaviors (2).

This new evidence from Li et al. strengthens the case made by the American Diabetes Association in formally acknowledging the importance of reducing and breaking up sedentary time for diabetes prevention. The 2016 American Diabetes Association Position Statement on physical activity/exercise and diabetes (9) recommends reducing the amount of daily time spent engaging in sedentary behavior and frequently interrupting prolonged periods of sedentary time with bouts of light-intensity activity. Other authoritative bodies have since made similar recommendations. Sedentary behavior has been identified as a key element of the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (10), the World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behavior (11), Australia’s Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines (12), and elsewhere. A consistent theme has been the increased emphasis given to achieving a healthier “balance” between time spent engaging in sedentary behavior and total physical activity time (see Fig. 1) (2,13,14), although the “how to” achieve a more desirable balance has received less attention (2).

Figure 1

Addressing the sedentary time/physical activity “balance” for improved health through the dual consideration of daily time spent sedentary and daily time spent engaging in physical activity (of all intensities). Balance: equivalent daily time spent sedentary and engaged in physical activity (orange/yellow color in middle), least desirable (red), and most desirable (green).

Figure 1

Addressing the sedentary time/physical activity “balance” for improved health through the dual consideration of daily time spent sedentary and daily time spent engaging in physical activity (of all intensities). Balance: equivalent daily time spent sedentary and engaged in physical activity (orange/yellow color in middle), least desirable (red), and most desirable (green).

Close modal

The figure illustrates the key principle that sedentary time displaces time spent engaging in physical activity: that this “balance” can be altered through spending a greater proportion of daily time sedentary, relative to time spent engaging in physical activity or, alternatively, providing strong underpinnings for good metabolic health, through reduced time spent sedentary as a result of greater amounts of time engaged in physical activity. As the findings of Li et al. highlight, reductions in sedentary time achieved through the replacement with daily-life activities and structured exercise are associated with reductions in type 2 diabetes risk, particularly among those with a lower T2D genetic risk. They underline the basic importance of addressing the “balance” between too little exercise and too much sitting through simple lifestyle-focused strategies.

This new evidence is compelling, but important research questions remain, particularly on the quantities, intensities, and patterns of physical activity that will be protective for those at risk for developing 2 diabetes, who spend more of their waking hours sitting and less time moving than those who are not at risk (15). This has particular relevance for the prevention of type 2 diabetes, with estimates suggesting that >40% of those with prediabetes are physically inactive (16).

It is pertinent to note that the exposure measures used by Li et al. are self-reported time spent engaging in three common sedentary behaviors: TV viewing time, computer use, and car use. Nowadays, the baseline measures used in epidemiological studies with physical activity and sedentary behavior as exposures include device-based assessment tools—small wearable devices (accelerometers) that provide moment-to-moment data at a fine resolution, identifying the frequency and intensity of movement (which may then be classified as light-intensity and moderate-intensity physical activity) plus nonmovement time (or sedentary behavior) (14).

TV viewing time is well established as having a strong relationship with biomarkers of diabetes risk (from multiple cross-sectional studies). From the seminal findings reported in 2001 by Hu et al. (17), and considering subsequent evidence, TV time has been a strong and consistent prospective predictor of incident type 2 diabetes. There are now good reasons to reconsider the relevance of TV viewing alone, given the proliferation of screen media such as smartphones, tablets, and streaming services (18). The findings from a recent study involving a nationally representative survey of the U.S. population from 2001 through 2016 showed that prevalence of sitting watching TV or videos for at least 2 h/day has generally remained high and stable among all ages (19), with other screen-based sedentary behaviors no doubt increasing.

Considering computer use and car use, there is recent evidence that time spent engaging in these common sedentary behaviors may have distinct and potentially less deleterious consequences than does TV time. Here, a key distinction is emerging between mentally passive versus mentally active sedentary behaviors, with TV time being the obvious instance of the former (20). Recent evidence from prospective observational studies shows clear relationships of mentally passive sedentary time with incident depression and with markers of depression risk (21,22). Moreover, a recent analysis from the 1970 British Cohort Study showed that watching TV or videos for >4 h/day at age 16 years was associated with risk of type 2 diabetes in adulthood (23). Considering the interrelationships of depression and type 2 diabetes, and the strengths of the TV time evidence, the mentally active versus mentally passive sedentary behavior distinction is a key topic for future research studies to better understand the nuances of this key domain of diabetes risk. The contributions of Li et al. in providing some new evidence relevant to the consideration of these emerging issues are welcome and appreciated.

Yet another element of these intriguing findings from Li et al. is their consideration of the potential role of genetic risk. By incorporating variables derived from genomic sequencing data, they set out to understand the confluence of genetic risk in the relationships of sedentary and physically active time in the development of type 2 diabetes. The finding that these two key behavioral influences on diabetes risk were not significant in those with higher genetic risk of diabetes is intriguing. Several questions arise, including whether it is possible that lifestyle modification is less of a predictor of T2D in the face of a genetic predisposition for insulin resistance and resulting β-cell dysfunction.

Considering this new evidence from Li et al. and the body of previous evidence, the question then arises about what might be done to make a difference to diabetes risk? Type 2 diabetes prevention is a global public health challenge. Too little physical activity and too much sedentary time are proliferating problems, driven by rapid social and environmental change. Environment and policy initiatives will thus be needed for a meaningful impact on the sedentary behavior/physical activity balance. Effective large-scale diabetes prevention programs thus cannot rely only on educational and individually focused motivational and behavioral change strategies (14). There nevertheless are important opportunities for diabetes specialists and other clinicians to address sedentary behavior, particularly through addressing sedentary behavior change as a precursor to increasing patients’ levels of physical activity.

See accompanying article, p. 2403.

Funding. D.W.D. and N.O. are supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council Fellowships Scheme and the Victorian Operational Infrastructure Support (OIS) Program.

Duality of Interest. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

1.
Li
X
,
Zhou
T
,
Ma
H
,
Liang
Z
,
Fonseca
VA
,
Qi
L
.
Replacement of sedentary behavior by various daily-life physical activities and structured exercises: genetic risk and incident type 2 diabetes
.
Diabetes Care
2021
;
44
:
2403
2410
2.
Dunstan
DW
,
Dogra
S
,
Carter
SE
,
Owen
N
.
Sit less and move more for cardiovascular health: emerging insights and opportunities
.
Nat Rev Cardiol. 20 May
2021
[Epub ahead of print]. DOI: 10.1038/s41569-021-00547-y
3.
Del Pozo-Cruz
J
,
García-Hermoso
A
,
Alfonso-Rosa
RM
, et al
.
Replacing sedentary time: meta-analysis of objective-assessment studies
.
Am J Prev Med
2018
;
55
:
395
402
4.
Bergouignan
A
,
Latouche
C
,
Heywood
S
, et al
.
Frequent interruptions of sedentary time modulates contraction- and insulin-stimulated glucose uptake pathways in muscle: ancillary analysis from randomized clinical trials
.
Sci Rep
2016
;
6
:
32044
5.
Pesola
AJ
,
Laukkanen
A
,
Tikkanen
O
,
Finni
T
.
Heterogeneity of muscle activity during sedentary behavior
.
Appl Physiol Nutr Metab
2016
;
41
:
1155
1162
6.
Du
Y
,
Liu
B
,
Sun
Y
,
Snetselaar
LG
,
Wallace
RB
,
Bao
W
.
Trends in adherence to the physical activity guidelines for Americans for aerobic activity and time spent on sedentary behavior among US adults, 2007 to 2016
.
JAMA Netw Open
2019
;
2
:
e197597
7.
Pinto
AJ
,
Dunstan
DW
,
Owen
N
,
Bonfá
E
,
Gualano
B
.
Combating physical inactivity during the COVID-19 pandemic
.
Nat Rev Rheumatol
2020
;
16
:
347
348
8.
Ammar
A
,
Brach
M
,
Trabelsi
K
, et al
.
Effects of COVID-19 home confinement on eating behaviour and physical activity: results of the ECLB-COVID19 international online survey
.
Nutrients
2020
;
12
:
1583
9.
Colberg
SR
,
Sigal
RJ
,
Yardley
JE
, et al
.
Physical activity/exercise and diabetes: a Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association
.
Diabetes Care
2016
;
39
:
2065
2079
10.
Piercy
KL
,
Troiano
RP
,
Ballard
RM
, et al
.
The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans
.
JAMA
2018
;
320
:
2020
2028
11.
Bull
FC
,
Al-Ansari
SS
,
Biddle
S
, et al
.
World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour
.
Br J Sports Med
2020
;
54
:
1451
1462
12.
Australian Government Department of Health
.
Australia’s Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines
.
Canberra, Australia
,
2014
13.
Chastin
SFM
,
McGregor
DE
,
Biddle
SJH
, et al
.
Striking the right balance: evidence to inform combined physical activity and sedentary behavior recommendations
.
J Phys Act Health
2021
;
18
:
631
637
14.
Owen
N
,
Healy
GN
,
Dempsey
PC
, et al
.
Sedentary behavior and public health: integrating the evidence and identifying potential solutions
.
Annu Rev Public Health
2020
;
41
:
265
287
15.
van der Berg
JD
,
Stehouwer
CD
,
Bosma
H
, et al
.
Associations of total amount and patterns of sedentary behaviour with type 2 diabetes and the metabolic syndrome: The Maastricht Study
.
Diabetologia
2016
;
59
:
709
718
16.
Velez
M
,
Chasan-Taber
L
,
Goldwater
E
,
VanKim
N
.
Physical activity and risk of diagnosed and undiagnosed prediabetes among males and females in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2007-2014
.
J Diabetes Res
2020
;
2020
:
3538746
17.
Hu
FB
,
Leitzmann
MF
,
Stampfer
MJ
,
Colditz
GA
,
Willett
WC
,
Rimm
EB
.
Physical activity and television watching in relation to risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus in men
.
Arch Intern Med
2001
;
161
:
1542
1548
18.
Stamatakis
E
,
Ekelund
U
,
Ding
D
,
Hamer
M
,
Bauman
AE
,
Lee
IM
.
Is the time right for quantitative public health guidelines on sitting? A narrative review of sedentary behaviour research paradigms and findings
.
Br J Sports Med
2019
;
53
:
377
382
19.
Yang
L
,
Cao
C
,
Kantor
ED
, et al
.
Trends in sedentary behavior among the US population, 2001-2016
.
JAMA
2019
;
321
:
1587
1597
20.
Hallgren
M
,
Dunstan
DW
,
Owen
N
.
Passive versus mentally active sedentary behaviors and depression
.
Exerc Sport Sci Rev
2020
;
48
:
20
27
21.
Hallgren
M
,
Nguyen
TT
,
Owen
N
, et al
.
Cross-sectional and prospective relationships of passive and mentally active sedentary behaviours and physical activity with depression
.
Br J Psychiatry
2020
;
217
:
413
419
22.
Hallgren
M
,
Nguyen
TT
,
Owen
N
, et al
.
Associations of sedentary behavior in leisure and occupational contexts with symptoms of depression and anxiety
.
Prev Med
2020
;
133
:
106021
23.
Scandiffio
JA
,
Janssen
I
.
Do adolescent sedentary behavior levels predict type 2 diabetes risk in adulthood?
BMC Public Health
2021
;
21
:
969
Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.