Reading this post may be dangerous to your health!

A TV (as in television) fan I am not. But when I saw a headline that “watching television damages the heart,” I took notice. We all hear about the dangers from cell phones and brain cancer, but the idea that the omnipresent television can cause heart damage — why, that strikes at one of the pillars of American culture.

Can it be true?

Reading about the study, I could not determine precisely what mechanism is involved that is unique to television.

Metabolic factors and inflammation may be partly to blame, the report said.

Research revealed those who devote more than four hours watching television, surfing the web, or playing compuer games are more than twice as likely to have major cardiac problems.

Dr Emmanuel Stamatakis of University College London’s Department of Epidemiology and Public Health said: “People who spend excessive amounts of time in front of a screen – primarily watching TV – are more likely to die of any cause and suffer heart-related problems.

“Our analysis suggests that two or more hours of screen time each day may place someone at greater risk for a cardiac event.”

The study was the first to examine the association between screen time and fatal and non-fatal heart attacks – found there was a 48 per cent increased risk of all-cause mortality and an approximately 125% increase in risk of cardiovascular events in those spending more than four hours

The risks were irrespective of factors such as smoking, hypertension, BMI, social class, and even exercise.

The scientists called for recreational guidelines to be issued because a majority of working age adults spend long periods being inactive while commuting or being slouched over a desk or computer.

Wait just a second! The headline screamed “watching television” and now they change it to being slouched over a desk or computer. (I do the latter for much of the day.)

Is it the TV that poses the danger, or is it a sedentary lifestyle?

The more I read, the more intrigued I became over the possibility that the study’s “scientific” author might have an axe to grind.

The piece changes its focus to “screen time”:

Data indicate that one fourth of the association between screen time and cardiovascular events was explained collectively by C-reactive protein (CRP), body mass index, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol suggesting that inflammation and deregulation of lipids may be one pathway through which prolonged sitting increases the risk for cardiovascular events.

CRP, a well-established marker of low-grade inflammation, was approximately two times higher in people spending more than four hours of screen time per day compared to those spending less than two hours a day.

The next step would be to try to uncover what prolonged sitting does to the human body in the short and long-term, whether and how exercise can mitigate these consequences, and how to alter lifestyles to reduce sitting and increase movement and exercise.

Well, if the problem is sitting, then it wouldn’t matter whether it is for work or recreation. And even “screen time” seems misleading, because sitting and reading books would constitute sitting every bit as much as watching Gilligan’s Island reruns, or writing blog posts.

In another article about the study, the author makes a statement which reveals what strikes me as revealing a personal bias against television:

The study found that people who spend 4 hours or more in front of a TV or computer screen are 48% more likely to die in general and 125% more likely to have some sort of heart attack or stroke than people who spend less than two hours in front of a screen.

“This is excessive,” Stamatakis said. “And besides, TV watching [is] a waste of time in the most passive and uncreative way, in most cases. It also displaces hugely beneficial physical activity and, according to our findings, is also linked to unique and distinct risks for health.”

I see his point, and I tend to agree with him about a lot of television being passive and uncreative, but I certainly wouldn’t say that about watching biased news programs that make you want to attack your set. Nor would I say it about, say, watching a good Alfred Hitchcock film on TCM. It can be an experience in art appreciation. But even if we assume he is right about TV being a waste of time, that’s not a scientific observation, but an opinion — and one which makes me wonder whether his study is biased and opinionated.

Before scolding the couch potatoes, I would like to see a study including bookworms as a control group.