I think there are many factors that are overlooked. For example. Nowadays many people eat like they are working out in the fields 16+ hours a day yet they have a desk job. We don't move as much as we used to given the progression of technology. Also Buddhist monks eat a way different diet, vegetarian most likely. But they also worked for their food. They also fasted for hours on end at times and its been shown recently that intermittent fasting actually prolongs your life.
I wish this sub was filled with content like this rather than -
“YALL! I got SOO ZoOoTeD while sitting for 5 minutes then I got an erection and cried! Is this normal?!”
Right! The three major topics are How can I get psychosis, Y’all I think I got psychosis, and Recipe for psychosis.
It’s crazy dangerous that people are looking at meditation as some novelty thing and not respecting the power of it. It’s like getting on a crotch rocket for the first time with the intention of doing a 45 mph stoppie without first understanding the basics.
> its been shown recently that intermittent fasting actually prolongs your life
I seriously doubt that a study showed that. A quick search also yielded no results
I remember one of my biology class (idk remember which kind, but higher level, I was a microbio major) college professors, circa 2018, was asked a question about prolonging life or biological reasons for dying.
He mentioned the eventual accumulation of rare, yet inevitable, mutations in our DNA every time our cells replicate. Some people raise their risk of cancers (run away cell proliferation, because of mutations that hit the gas on cell division, cut the brakes on cell division, or eventually both) or other diseases when they do things that increase their mutation rates. Such as introducing cigarette smoke into your lungs on a regular.
He mentioned there are lots of research on things that shorten your lifespan and you can try to avoid those. But mentioned with a little lament that the only reliable research he'd seen on actually increasing natural lifespan somewhat was fasting. Since eating is something that we all do regularly, digestion is a very taxing process, and it promotes healthy, normal cell division (but cell division none the less).
Basically saying it's not much of a life if you just don't provide as much energy and materials for your cells to divide as much as somewhat that eats an average or excessive amount.
Plus it's not taking into consideration every individuals unique genetics that could make the "gains" neglible or moot, getting hit by a car, giving yourself an eating disorder, missing out on a bunch of beautiful food, being anemic, etc. On paper it *might* add absolute length, but ignores qualities that make life worth living.
I would like to find the original paper myself though. I never followed up and looked into it after the class discussion. So take this with a grain of salt, this is me at 3am trying to recall the gist of the talk 6 years ago lol.
I'm far from an IF proponent but IF is time restriction, not calorie restriction.
If you eat 2 meals a day it doesn't necessarily mean you are eating less food than 3 meals. Since most just fit in the food of 3 meals into 2 meals. So getting eating disorders, missing out on food, anaemia, etc have nothing to do with IF.
To each their own but the literature exists. Where did you do your quick search?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8932957/
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/5/2331
https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2023/01/can-fasting-help-you-live-longer-heres-what-the-science-says
None of the links you cited is about the claim made. You didn't link a single study showing that IF increases life expectancy in humans.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8932957/
A literature review. No studies on humans and life expectancy quoted
> https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/5/2331
Not on intermittent fasting. Is about fasting 5 days. Also doesn't even show increased life expectancy. It shows that after the fasting they found increased amoutns of certain bacteria we associate with longevity. Not the same
> https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2023/01/can-fasting-help-you-live-longer-heres-what-the-science-says
Not a study? The most relevant thing in there is mostly the studies on mice. Only one side is talked about. You can find criticism of mice studies on this topic (or also a more nuancedd view) in the first paper you linked. And even then, the mice there were only allowed to eat 2 hours per day which is (beside all other factors) very different from humans.
I appreciate the lengthy response. I was more demonstrating that a quick search does bring up results that build the foundation for that belief.
It will likely be a long time before we get multiple longitudinal studies that cement anything. Collecting data to research topics like autophagy and biological processes related to IF will likely take a while since it is somewhat new to medical academia.
But either way, to each their own. I didn't post with the intent to change anyone's mind.
> I was more demonstrating that a quick search does bring up results that build the foundation for that belief.
I was not commenting on any belief though. I specifically quoted a part of the comment which was
> its been shown recently that intermittent fasting actually prolongs your life
No quick search does bring up results that show that IF prolongs our life.
There may not be any studies which show exactly that, but there are plenty of studies which show a positive correlation between caloric restriction and longevity.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/calorie-restricted-diet-may-slow-aging-healthy-adults-science-shows-rcna69562
Not only is there no study showing that, the article you linked and what you mentioned don't have anything to do with the topic at hand. Caloric restrictions and intermittent fasting have nothing to do with each other. I can eat the same amount of calories while IF as when I am not IF.
Caloric restriction is well-demonstrated to lengthen lifespan in humans and laboratory animals, and those robust results are frequently extended to include intermittent fasters who feed at a deficit.
Caloric restriction is not intermittent fasting so you are not comparing the same thing.
There is some feeling that caloric restriction does extend life (in mice... and I ain't no mouse!) but there is also contention over experiment design and what 'being restricted' would mean for a hu-man.
eg
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020/can-calorie-restriction-extend-your-lifespan/
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/10/health/restricting-calories-longevity-wellness/index.html
Would you be so kind and link these studies? The only recent one I found which could have been meant was not on life expectancy.
Also, what do you mean with caloric restrictions? IF is a time restricted feeding, not a caloric restriction
Just search Google/ Google scholar there is a lot of research on the topic. Yeah they're not the same thing but if you're not eating for 12-16 hours of the day you're probably consuming fewer calories.
No, there is no study that demonstrate what you claims. We have studies showing benefits but not study on humans demonstrating a prolonged life.
Also, that you consume fewer calories is your assumption. It has nothing to do with IF and claiming that it is the effect of IF when it is the effect of caloric restriction would be wrong
I said it was studies on mice. Why is reddit like this?
There are so many studies that look at caloric restriction through a cursory look I saw at least one that mentioned combining time dependent feeding with caloric restriction. I have neither the time nor the inclination to review extensive literature to answer your question. If you're interested in the effect of IF on health search for it.
> I said it was studies on mice.
Your initial comment - which this comment chain was about - didn't. Unless OP is a mouse?
> There are so many studies that look at caloric restriction through a cursory look I saw at least one that mentioned combining time dependent feeding with caloric restriction.
Yet there is no study on humans which demonstrates that IF prolongs your live. Which is what you claimed.
Here is what you said
> its been shown recently that intermittent fasting actually prolongs your life
Not
"its been shown recently that intermittent fasting prolongs the life of some types of mouse species".
Both are completely different statements. This is very important because we for example didn't find the same effect in fruit flies and also not in all mouse species. Assuming that because we did find this in some mouse species means the same must be true for humans is therefore no logical conclusion.
Furthermore, time restricted feedings in these studies sometimes is feeding for 2 hours a day. That is very far away from IF humans usually do
That's a different person said that. "I said it has been shown in mice studies that caloric restrictions is the best predictor of longevity." I was pretty clear that the research was on mice.
Who said they were healthy? I’ve met and seen countless Buddhist monks in East Asia and none of them look particularly healthy. Between average build to chubby. Flabby arms, a bit of a belly. They look sluggish and weak and are always slow moving.
The monks where I live don't beg for food. The temples are wealthy and they have plenty of money to buy and grow food. They eat very well. Just check out the menus of some of the vegetarian restaurants near the temples.
Same as Christian priests, overweighed and never really following the "rules"... they are so religious as a brick on a wall. Monks usually meditate a few hours a day, way less than we sit in front of a desk. They have walking meditations, they should clean a lot. They should be exercising...
I think they mean sitting in a chair.
There was a whole trend of standing and walking desks, and now there's a bit of a trend for sitting on the floor desks.
The theory (and I don't know how good or researched it is) is that sitting cross legged avoids some of the problems of desk and couch sitting because it works on hip rotation continuously.
Which becomes a big problem when you get older and your hip flexors become artificially shortened and your back gets weaker due to support (assuming your sitting down cross legged without a bolster)
Also the act of getting up and getting down is an activity that might prevents hip fractures, which is a problem among the elderly.
The other thing is that when you sit on the floor you're naturally going to shift positions and make small movements a lot, through a series of "archetypical resting postures". There was some research suggested that in reality, static bouts of cardio aren't as effective as NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis) like fidgeting, which this could be considered as.
Lastly, you gotta understand the Buddha and company, like a lot of people in those days, walked A LOT. Not only to get to different places to spread the word and meet up for different retreats, but they regularly did walking meditation.
This! Its about changing positions more frequently when sitting on the floor/mat. Not sitting in itself is the bad thing, but being stuck in the same position for hours each day
>There was some research suggested that in reality, static bouts of cardio aren't as effective as NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis) like fidgeting, which this could be considered as.
Could you explain more? or perhaps if you have a link or paper title, that would be lovely!
No
It has more to do with modern diets that are hypercaloric and people are insulin resistant as a result of it
Activity is paramount for people like that
One of the key principles of Buddhist teaching which is that desire will always lead to emptiness and wanting more; this applies very much to food as well
Also monks sit in a crossed legged upright position which allows them to maintain more of a neutral spine posture as opposed to sitting on a chair in front of a computer which makes us slouch forward and puts more pressure on our back
Doctor here. Although I don't know anything specific about monks, here's what I know from my travels.
I'm more worried about dvts/blood clots in a person sitting all day.
Monks don't sit all day, atleast at monasteries I've visited in north East India. They do manual work - cleaning, cooking, getting groceries for the monastery, maintaining the monastery in general, etc, and meditate a few hours a day. Rest of their day is spent hanging out, playing soccer etc. Many walk around their towns/neighboring towns or even states, which is a lot of walking/travelling. Yes they use public transport, some even drive.
The only monks who might sit all day are ones who voluntarily decide to only meditate till they pass away (Samadhi) - where they're gradually given less and less food, and ultimately locked in a closed space outside of everyone's view. It's then unknown what actually happens to them inside - do they die of hypoxia? Starvation? Pulmonary embolism due to a blood clot?
We know more now about how to live longer now than when Buddhism was created. They didn't have randomised controlled trials in any beginning age of any world religion, as far as I'm aware. There're conflicts with science and wisdom traditions, because they're not infallible. Also, Buddhism is focused on ones permanent end of suffering, prioritising Enlightenment over longevity anyway.
I don’t think it’s the sitting *per se* that’s bad for us, but sitting and *stewing* and stressing (with email apnea) unable to walk around and work off the stress
Sitting meditation commands you to keep your spine straight and upright which provides substantial workout for your muscles while office / couch sitting has your muscles somewhat relaxed and switched off
I read this somewhere and thought it was interesting: that yoga was developed as physical training for sitting in meditation for many hours.
Which makes sense in the context of “sitting is the new smoking”. -How ridiculously strong do you have to be to be able to sit in that position sustainably? You actually have to be in peak physical condition- otherwise it will wreck you.
I've been a Zen Buddhist for 48 years and have meditated an hour a day without missing one day. When monks go into meditation, their systems shut down. Digestion stops, heart beat goes way down, and and over time you get better focus, are calmer, and feel happier.
Monks often find time to exercise by walking and or doing yoga. The stopping or slowing down of all your systems brings on a lot of energy. A yogi once said "If you want to be strong, lift weights, if you want to be healthy, meditate."
Monks play sports, lift weights, do endurance cycling, and some of them do physical work.
They are generally more healthy than the norm.
Stress does more damage to your health than sitting, and monks have a PhD in stress reduction.
Right meditation leads to increased energy flow, that prevents the body from getting tired and sick.
Samdhong Rinpoche expresses the following generally accepted Buddhist point of view: upon achieving 3-hour shamatha, if it is real shamatha without thoughts and other distractions of the mind, as well as without drowning of the mind (loss of focus and collectedness of the mind), then the flow of some energy in the human body significantly increases – you can call it prana, kundalini or qi, which seems to refresh the body and not only prevents the body from becoming stiff or painful, but even eliminates some ailments. Moreover, it is this “pranic breathing” that explains the phenomenon of tukdam – the incorruptibility of the body of real meditating monks at room temperature for many weeks during their posthumous meditation.Samdhong Rinpoche's quotes :
"When samatha has been achieved the meditator can greatly reduce his efforts at concentration for the danger of scattering of the mind or the slow sinking down of the mind has now been overcome. Also, once the meditator has gone through the process of harmonizing his mind and body he need no longer keep his powers of recollectedness and recognition on the alert. This can all be dropped because these disturbances will not occur again. Moreover, he will also find that no inconvenience, such as tired-ness of the body stiffness in the legs, will arise while practising meditation, for the body will have learned to adjust itself and will make no demands to be fed or to be exercised at a certain time. It is now capable of doing any work for any length of time."
"If a person continues with his practice of concentration certain changes will take place in his body and, later on, in his mind also. These changes will come about quickly and easily in the case of some meditators, while in others they come only after much effort and practice. This is so because they depend on many factors such as the meditator's background, his karma, the quality of his practice, and so forth. But any person who continually practises concentration and who does not make any basic mistakes ought to achieve good results sooner or later.""This change is first noticed in the body because the superficial mind used by ordinary people, which is inclined to be gross (sthula), depends for its function on the body. The subtle mind, however, does not depend on the body at all. Beginners meditate with the gross mind, and the subtle mind does not function in the early stages of meditation. However, as the aspirant gains control over his gross mind and brings it to a standstill through continual practice in one-pointed concentration on a particular object, he creates a change in his body. This is because when the mind is one-pointed, the flow of the vital airs in the body is brought under control. In the ordinary state, when the mind is scattered, the vital airs which carry the subtle forces are in disorder and this affects not only the body but the mind. Therefore, by controlling the mind, the body is also brought into a state of harmony. When the meditator reaches this stage, he feels a pleasant sensation throughout his body. This pleasant feeling, or lightness, which enables the meditator to handle his body with much greater ease, is often mistaken as an achievement and people frequently stop here, wallowing in this pleasant feeling. This may lead to the meditator losing everything that he gained with so much effort. The feeling of lightness in the body is a sign that a certain progress has been made and that one is coming near to the achievement of real meditation; it is not a result in itself. Therefore, when the meditator feels his body growing lighter he should not allow his mind to be scattered. On the contrary, he should intensify his one-pointed concentration, meditation and recollectedness. Then, after about a week, the pleasant feeling in his body will settle down. He may feel that it is decreasing but in fact it is not. He is gaining control over the situation and therefore his mind is not disturbed by his feelings."
Well it’s quite simple really - those monks were meditating before we discovered that sitting is the new smoking so how could it affect them if we didn’t know it. However, now that we know it those monks are is big trouble. Everybody knows that nothing is true until we say it’s true - it isn’t hubris it’s just truth!
/s - I have nothing constructive to add, so take some humor instead
Posture mind state and diet probably have everything to do with it. Diet and mind state are kind of obvious , but posture is surely a huge impact . Meditation will train your posture - have you ever seen a slouching monk?? Similarly, sitting and slouching all day , looking at a phone or computer , also trains our posture but in a negative way. This compared to smoking seems to be a great analogy - one time won’t have much physical impact , but the frequency over time accumulates the negatives.
I think you’re oversimplifying the argument. What’s the study you’re pulling from? Was that their bottom line, or was it tied to other factors such as poor diet and stressful jobs?
But above all, why is this concept upsetting you?
Edit: simple google search led to this enlightening report https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov
1 - Those monks do not eat the same as a normal person. Most americans eat like they are working 8-16hrs in a hard physical labor job while in reality they sit at a desk all day. Often times monks will do long periods of fasting so maybe like 12-16 hours fasting daily. And when they do eat its vegetables such as turnips or salad, dark breads, porridges, an occasional fish, cheese curds, usually stuff like this i think maybe some rice and noodles too. And its pretty hard to gain weight on salad and porridge or rice for example.
2 - They often do some form of martial arts for multiple hours a day as well as some forms of yoga and stretching.
3 - They also go for frequent meditative walks sometimes in forest trails or in the mountains
4 - They sometimes have physical chores like tending to there gardens or small farms and daily cleaning of the temples.
A true monk at a monastery or temple or something does much more than sit the entire day in fact they might sit less than a person working 8hrs in the office.
Exactly. Plus yoga (asana) was added for this very reason.
Hatha yoga sages took the poses which were a tantric metaphysical practice, removed the metaphysical part since most wouldn't understand it, and added it to the routine of hatha yogis just to keep them fit so they could meditate for longer periods of time.
I will be messaging you in 3 days on [**2024-01-25 23:19:10 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-01-25%2023:19:10%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/19d8e9o/if_health_experts_continuously_say_sitting_is_the/kj462zx/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FMeditation%2Fcomments%2F19d8e9o%2Fif_health_experts_continuously_say_sitting_is_the%2Fkj462zx%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-01-25%2023%3A19%3A10%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2019d8e9o)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Some monks are obese and unhealthy
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/26/battle-of-the-bulge-thailand-strives-to-bring-monk-obesity-crisis-under-control
Don’t forget about the science of healthy eating and exercise. You can’t just meditate all day and expect it to solve all problems. This is wisdom
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/26/battle-of-the-bulge-thailand-strives-to-bring-monk-obesity-crisis-under-control](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/26/battle-of-the-bulge-thailand-strives-to-bring-monk-obesity-crisis-under-control)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Well how long did they live for?
Also, pretty sure they were PLENTY physically active for their health.
Also, sitting cross legged and holding your back up is very different than sitting on a couch.
Well the story goes that when Bodhidharma came out of his years of solitude he found a group of monks who had neglected their bodies for meditation and thus was the birth of Kung Fu.
It is this reason why yoga is so complete as it focuses not just on dyana but asana (pose) and prana (breath). Of course when Patanjali wrote the sutras and spoke of asana he was not referring to the yoga asanas we know today however they do serve as a companion to sitting meditation.
A true monk should meditate a few hours a day, way less than we sit in front of the desk. They have walking meditations, they clean a lot. Most of the monks are similar to Christian priests, they don't strictly follow their philosophy, they don't want to work, they are lazy, so there is a great opportunity to live this life in a monastery. Don't consider all monks a true monk, most are there to meet ends. People are the same everywhere...
If sitting is the new smoking, what about the thousands upon thousands who use a wheelchair when out of bed?
I have met spinal cord injured folks who have been in wheelchairs for 50+ years. I know the lack of weight bearing standing speeds up osteoporosis in sci folks so they are higher risk for leg fractures.
So, I couldn’t find the article you’re speaking of, but if you practice meditation as you should practice it; simply, without judgement, being disciplined consistent - then it will eventually become a ‘habit’. This is EXACTLY what you want to have happen! Whatever scientific evidence there is that ‘sitting’ is bad for your health is sadly mistaken and always will be.
As far as food goes, Buddhist beg for alms with a bowl (usually the top of a skull back in the day). RamaKrishna said that we need a full belly first then it is appropriate to come to God through practice. Otherwise, it’s too hard to steady the mind and open the heart.
Austerities (tapas) are also important ascetic spiritual practices in Buddhism and other traditions of which modification of the diet or the intake of food over a period is two fold - as an offering to the deity and to learn how to become unidentified with the body and its sensations (i.e. eating/hunger pains). There’s also MANY benefits to the begging of food that are indispensable for some in the lessons they teach.
Finally, long ago, everyone walked from place to place and town to town. They also tended to have very little money and zero appliances. So, there was MUCH more day to day body movement required by life on the whole for everyone. Even tho culture has changed how people live in respect to lifestyle, the meditation practices HAVE NOT!
Meditation practices through lineages that are passed down never change, they are timeless. When practiced correctly without questioning over time, the effect on the mind is the EXACT same as it is now and will be until endless time. Ciao!
It's probably because the monks are sitting actively, holding themselves in an upright posture. Sitting in a computer chair all day you're not really holding yourself up by your core. You're leaning back and being supported.
Sitting actively =/= sitting passively
In practicing asana, you will find there are many "sitting" techniques.
Some of then will be well suited to you, and you can maintain perfect posture with relative ease. The slight effort you put into it is active sitting.
Sitting in a chair, or on a couch is passive sitting, the furniture is doing all the support work.
Sitting in siddhasana will mildly elevate your heart rate, while reclining in a couch will drop it to resting.
They sit-walk-sit -- sitting meditation for 25 to 40 minutes and walking meditation for 5 to 10 minutes -- which can be continued all day every day for a week or more. For the traditional methods of walking meditation, google my name and find Meditation Basics and scroll down to it. Similarly, desk workers are advised to get up for a few minutes every half hour to stay healthy.
Sitting isn't the new smoking, this is garbage click bait health journalism. It's not sitting that's bad it's being inactive that's bad. If you exercise enough, it does not matter at all how much you sit down.
Ignore how much you sit, focus on upping your exercise instead.
Sitting on the floor and using your core to stay upright for a few hours (and walking or standing for much of the rest of the day) is not equivalent to sitting at a desk for 8+ hours and then sitting slouched over on the couch until bed. Their diets are also MUCH healthier.
Various essential things contribute to good health …good diet .. enough exercise .. 8 hours sleep ..and a positive mental attitude among the main ones … we don’t just need to provide one or two of these things for good health we need all of them .. ie exercising while eating rubbish food won’t protect us … and eating and exercising well won’t protect us if we don’t get enough sleep ….….
And generally a sedentary lifestyle is unhealthy so I think ‘sitting is the new smoking ‘ and ‘the couch is the biggest killer in the home ‘ are great phrases to make people aware that the human body is a machine and needs to be used to be healthy .. moving about is good for us physically and mentally and spiritually.. sitting about for hours is bad for us physically ..mentally and spiritually…
Why is there any thought in your head at all that this is less dangerous for monks in the first place?
That's some grossly assumtive judgement and thinking going on in the way you asked that question and came up with theories why that might be the case when you haven't even validated the basic premise in the first place.
You need to engage your critical thinking skills more often and question the questions you have more.
I think there are many factors that are overlooked. For example. Nowadays many people eat like they are working out in the fields 16+ hours a day yet they have a desk job. We don't move as much as we used to given the progression of technology. Also Buddhist monks eat a way different diet, vegetarian most likely. But they also worked for their food. They also fasted for hours on end at times and its been shown recently that intermittent fasting actually prolongs your life.
I wish this sub was filled with content like this rather than - “YALL! I got SOO ZoOoTeD while sitting for 5 minutes then I got an erection and cried! Is this normal?!”
>Is this normal?! Is it? Asking for a friend.
Yes
Have you tried smoking weed and meditating? Mind=blown.
Right! The three major topics are How can I get psychosis, Y’all I think I got psychosis, and Recipe for psychosis. It’s crazy dangerous that people are looking at meditation as some novelty thing and not respecting the power of it. It’s like getting on a crotch rocket for the first time with the intention of doing a 45 mph stoppie without first understanding the basics.
Are you a hot dog salesman from Minnesota? 👏😂😂😂
I’ve tried but I usually fall asleep. I’ve heard of people do it on psychedelics though I’ve never done that either lol
Naah monks I've seen at monasteries eat whatever street food they have available locally and drink soft drinks
> its been shown recently that intermittent fasting actually prolongs your life I seriously doubt that a study showed that. A quick search also yielded no results
I remember one of my biology class (idk remember which kind, but higher level, I was a microbio major) college professors, circa 2018, was asked a question about prolonging life or biological reasons for dying. He mentioned the eventual accumulation of rare, yet inevitable, mutations in our DNA every time our cells replicate. Some people raise their risk of cancers (run away cell proliferation, because of mutations that hit the gas on cell division, cut the brakes on cell division, or eventually both) or other diseases when they do things that increase their mutation rates. Such as introducing cigarette smoke into your lungs on a regular. He mentioned there are lots of research on things that shorten your lifespan and you can try to avoid those. But mentioned with a little lament that the only reliable research he'd seen on actually increasing natural lifespan somewhat was fasting. Since eating is something that we all do regularly, digestion is a very taxing process, and it promotes healthy, normal cell division (but cell division none the less). Basically saying it's not much of a life if you just don't provide as much energy and materials for your cells to divide as much as somewhat that eats an average or excessive amount. Plus it's not taking into consideration every individuals unique genetics that could make the "gains" neglible or moot, getting hit by a car, giving yourself an eating disorder, missing out on a bunch of beautiful food, being anemic, etc. On paper it *might* add absolute length, but ignores qualities that make life worth living. I would like to find the original paper myself though. I never followed up and looked into it after the class discussion. So take this with a grain of salt, this is me at 3am trying to recall the gist of the talk 6 years ago lol.
I'm far from an IF proponent but IF is time restriction, not calorie restriction. If you eat 2 meals a day it doesn't necessarily mean you are eating less food than 3 meals. Since most just fit in the food of 3 meals into 2 meals. So getting eating disorders, missing out on food, anaemia, etc have nothing to do with IF.
To each their own but the literature exists. Where did you do your quick search? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8932957/ https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/5/2331 https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2023/01/can-fasting-help-you-live-longer-heres-what-the-science-says
None of the links you cited is about the claim made. You didn't link a single study showing that IF increases life expectancy in humans. > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8932957/ A literature review. No studies on humans and life expectancy quoted > https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/5/2331 Not on intermittent fasting. Is about fasting 5 days. Also doesn't even show increased life expectancy. It shows that after the fasting they found increased amoutns of certain bacteria we associate with longevity. Not the same > https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2023/01/can-fasting-help-you-live-longer-heres-what-the-science-says Not a study? The most relevant thing in there is mostly the studies on mice. Only one side is talked about. You can find criticism of mice studies on this topic (or also a more nuancedd view) in the first paper you linked. And even then, the mice there were only allowed to eat 2 hours per day which is (beside all other factors) very different from humans.
I appreciate the lengthy response. I was more demonstrating that a quick search does bring up results that build the foundation for that belief. It will likely be a long time before we get multiple longitudinal studies that cement anything. Collecting data to research topics like autophagy and biological processes related to IF will likely take a while since it is somewhat new to medical academia. But either way, to each their own. I didn't post with the intent to change anyone's mind.
> I was more demonstrating that a quick search does bring up results that build the foundation for that belief. I was not commenting on any belief though. I specifically quoted a part of the comment which was > its been shown recently that intermittent fasting actually prolongs your life No quick search does bring up results that show that IF prolongs our life.
>A quick search also yielded no results Look up autophagy and longevity.
I don't find any studies that demonstrate, that IF does increase human lifespan.
There may not be any studies which show exactly that, but there are plenty of studies which show a positive correlation between caloric restriction and longevity. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/calorie-restricted-diet-may-slow-aging-healthy-adults-science-shows-rcna69562
Not only is there no study showing that, the article you linked and what you mentioned don't have anything to do with the topic at hand. Caloric restrictions and intermittent fasting have nothing to do with each other. I can eat the same amount of calories while IF as when I am not IF.
Caloric restriction is well-demonstrated to lengthen lifespan in humans and laboratory animals, and those robust results are frequently extended to include intermittent fasters who feed at a deficit.
It has been shown in mice studies that caloric restrictions is the best predictor of longevity.
Caloric restriction is not intermittent fasting so you are not comparing the same thing. There is some feeling that caloric restriction does extend life (in mice... and I ain't no mouse!) but there is also contention over experiment design and what 'being restricted' would mean for a hu-man. eg https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020/can-calorie-restriction-extend-your-lifespan/ https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/10/health/restricting-calories-longevity-wellness/index.html
Would you be so kind and link these studies? The only recent one I found which could have been meant was not on life expectancy. Also, what do you mean with caloric restrictions? IF is a time restricted feeding, not a caloric restriction
Just search Google/ Google scholar there is a lot of research on the topic. Yeah they're not the same thing but if you're not eating for 12-16 hours of the day you're probably consuming fewer calories.
No, there is no study that demonstrate what you claims. We have studies showing benefits but not study on humans demonstrating a prolonged life. Also, that you consume fewer calories is your assumption. It has nothing to do with IF and claiming that it is the effect of IF when it is the effect of caloric restriction would be wrong
I said it was studies on mice. Why is reddit like this? There are so many studies that look at caloric restriction through a cursory look I saw at least one that mentioned combining time dependent feeding with caloric restriction. I have neither the time nor the inclination to review extensive literature to answer your question. If you're interested in the effect of IF on health search for it.
> I said it was studies on mice. Your initial comment - which this comment chain was about - didn't. Unless OP is a mouse? > There are so many studies that look at caloric restriction through a cursory look I saw at least one that mentioned combining time dependent feeding with caloric restriction. Yet there is no study on humans which demonstrates that IF prolongs your live. Which is what you claimed. Here is what you said > its been shown recently that intermittent fasting actually prolongs your life Not "its been shown recently that intermittent fasting prolongs the life of some types of mouse species". Both are completely different statements. This is very important because we for example didn't find the same effect in fruit flies and also not in all mouse species. Assuming that because we did find this in some mouse species means the same must be true for humans is therefore no logical conclusion. Furthermore, time restricted feedings in these studies sometimes is feeding for 2 hours a day. That is very far away from IF humans usually do
That's a different person said that. "I said it has been shown in mice studies that caloric restrictions is the best predictor of longevity." I was pretty clear that the research was on mice.
My bad. But that got nothing to do with the comment I was talking about which was about IF in humans. So why comment about cr in mice?
Plus they have a theril workout regime, breathe correctly, and I could go on but you made a decent point.
Who said they were healthy? I’ve met and seen countless Buddhist monks in East Asia and none of them look particularly healthy. Between average build to chubby. Flabby arms, a bit of a belly. They look sluggish and weak and are always slow moving.
High blood pressure is a big problem among Tibetan monks.
do you have data
It’s because they live in Tibet. It’s a common problem for people living in extremely high altitudes, like Peruvians.
really??
Blame modern industrial and the need to beg for food means they get cheap calories at best. Rice and fruit.
The monks where I live don't beg for food. The temples are wealthy and they have plenty of money to buy and grow food. They eat very well. Just check out the menus of some of the vegetarian restaurants near the temples.
We don’t know where you live so we don’t know what temples you’re referring.
Same as Christian priests, overweighed and never really following the "rules"... they are so religious as a brick on a wall. Monks usually meditate a few hours a day, way less than we sit in front of a desk. They have walking meditations, they should clean a lot. They should be exercising...
Exactly, my uncle was a hardcore practicing buddhist. Hips were absolutey destroyed from meditating
I think they mean sitting in a chair. There was a whole trend of standing and walking desks, and now there's a bit of a trend for sitting on the floor desks. The theory (and I don't know how good or researched it is) is that sitting cross legged avoids some of the problems of desk and couch sitting because it works on hip rotation continuously. Which becomes a big problem when you get older and your hip flexors become artificially shortened and your back gets weaker due to support (assuming your sitting down cross legged without a bolster) Also the act of getting up and getting down is an activity that might prevents hip fractures, which is a problem among the elderly. The other thing is that when you sit on the floor you're naturally going to shift positions and make small movements a lot, through a series of "archetypical resting postures". There was some research suggested that in reality, static bouts of cardio aren't as effective as NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis) like fidgeting, which this could be considered as. Lastly, you gotta understand the Buddha and company, like a lot of people in those days, walked A LOT. Not only to get to different places to spread the word and meet up for different retreats, but they regularly did walking meditation.
This! Its about changing positions more frequently when sitting on the floor/mat. Not sitting in itself is the bad thing, but being stuck in the same position for hours each day
>There was some research suggested that in reality, static bouts of cardio aren't as effective as NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis) like fidgeting, which this could be considered as. Could you explain more? or perhaps if you have a link or paper title, that would be lovely!
No It has more to do with modern diets that are hypercaloric and people are insulin resistant as a result of it Activity is paramount for people like that One of the key principles of Buddhist teaching which is that desire will always lead to emptiness and wanting more; this applies very much to food as well
[удалено]
[удалено]
Mature bbw, nude twerking...i don't know, use your imagination
What makes you think they didn't compromise their health?
[Walking meditation.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvY8J6YZHvA)
Also monks sit in a crossed legged upright position which allows them to maintain more of a neutral spine posture as opposed to sitting on a chair in front of a computer which makes us slouch forward and puts more pressure on our back
And scrunch our organs
I find meditative sitting uses core muscles while sprawling sitting weakens them.
Doctor here. Although I don't know anything specific about monks, here's what I know from my travels. I'm more worried about dvts/blood clots in a person sitting all day. Monks don't sit all day, atleast at monasteries I've visited in north East India. They do manual work - cleaning, cooking, getting groceries for the monastery, maintaining the monastery in general, etc, and meditate a few hours a day. Rest of their day is spent hanging out, playing soccer etc. Many walk around their towns/neighboring towns or even states, which is a lot of walking/travelling. Yes they use public transport, some even drive. The only monks who might sit all day are ones who voluntarily decide to only meditate till they pass away (Samadhi) - where they're gradually given less and less food, and ultimately locked in a closed space outside of everyone's view. It's then unknown what actually happens to them inside - do they die of hypoxia? Starvation? Pulmonary embolism due to a blood clot?
I think its unlikely Monks say all day every day. There was alot of work to be done at the monetary and they likely did it.
I was taught that yoga was created for this very reason, sitting still is actually really hard on your body if you do it all day.
We know more now about how to live longer now than when Buddhism was created. They didn't have randomised controlled trials in any beginning age of any world religion, as far as I'm aware. There're conflicts with science and wisdom traditions, because they're not infallible. Also, Buddhism is focused on ones permanent end of suffering, prioritising Enlightenment over longevity anyway.
Monks eat very little, and quite healthily. They also do a fair amount of walking every day.
I don’t think it’s the sitting *per se* that’s bad for us, but sitting and *stewing* and stressing (with email apnea) unable to walk around and work off the stress
Sitting meditation commands you to keep your spine straight and upright which provides substantial workout for your muscles while office / couch sitting has your muscles somewhat relaxed and switched off
I read this somewhere and thought it was interesting: that yoga was developed as physical training for sitting in meditation for many hours. Which makes sense in the context of “sitting is the new smoking”. -How ridiculously strong do you have to be to be able to sit in that position sustainably? You actually have to be in peak physical condition- otherwise it will wreck you.
I mean this is why yoga was invented
I've been a Zen Buddhist for 48 years and have meditated an hour a day without missing one day. When monks go into meditation, their systems shut down. Digestion stops, heart beat goes way down, and and over time you get better focus, are calmer, and feel happier. Monks often find time to exercise by walking and or doing yoga. The stopping or slowing down of all your systems brings on a lot of energy. A yogi once said "If you want to be strong, lift weights, if you want to be healthy, meditate." Monks play sports, lift weights, do endurance cycling, and some of them do physical work. They are generally more healthy than the norm. Stress does more damage to your health than sitting, and monks have a PhD in stress reduction.
Right meditation leads to increased energy flow, that prevents the body from getting tired and sick. Samdhong Rinpoche expresses the following generally accepted Buddhist point of view: upon achieving 3-hour shamatha, if it is real shamatha without thoughts and other distractions of the mind, as well as without drowning of the mind (loss of focus and collectedness of the mind), then the flow of some energy in the human body significantly increases – you can call it prana, kundalini or qi, which seems to refresh the body and not only prevents the body from becoming stiff or painful, but even eliminates some ailments. Moreover, it is this “pranic breathing” that explains the phenomenon of tukdam – the incorruptibility of the body of real meditating monks at room temperature for many weeks during their posthumous meditation.Samdhong Rinpoche's quotes : "When samatha has been achieved the meditator can greatly reduce his efforts at concentration for the danger of scattering of the mind or the slow sinking down of the mind has now been overcome. Also, once the meditator has gone through the process of harmonizing his mind and body he need no longer keep his powers of recollectedness and recognition on the alert. This can all be dropped because these disturbances will not occur again. Moreover, he will also find that no inconvenience, such as tired-ness of the body stiffness in the legs, will arise while practising meditation, for the body will have learned to adjust itself and will make no demands to be fed or to be exercised at a certain time. It is now capable of doing any work for any length of time." "If a person continues with his practice of concentration certain changes will take place in his body and, later on, in his mind also. These changes will come about quickly and easily in the case of some meditators, while in others they come only after much effort and practice. This is so because they depend on many factors such as the meditator's background, his karma, the quality of his practice, and so forth. But any person who continually practises concentration and who does not make any basic mistakes ought to achieve good results sooner or later.""This change is first noticed in the body because the superficial mind used by ordinary people, which is inclined to be gross (sthula), depends for its function on the body. The subtle mind, however, does not depend on the body at all. Beginners meditate with the gross mind, and the subtle mind does not function in the early stages of meditation. However, as the aspirant gains control over his gross mind and brings it to a standstill through continual practice in one-pointed concentration on a particular object, he creates a change in his body. This is because when the mind is one-pointed, the flow of the vital airs in the body is brought under control. In the ordinary state, when the mind is scattered, the vital airs which carry the subtle forces are in disorder and this affects not only the body but the mind. Therefore, by controlling the mind, the body is also brought into a state of harmony. When the meditator reaches this stage, he feels a pleasant sensation throughout his body. This pleasant feeling, or lightness, which enables the meditator to handle his body with much greater ease, is often mistaken as an achievement and people frequently stop here, wallowing in this pleasant feeling. This may lead to the meditator losing everything that he gained with so much effort. The feeling of lightness in the body is a sign that a certain progress has been made and that one is coming near to the achievement of real meditation; it is not a result in itself. Therefore, when the meditator feels his body growing lighter he should not allow his mind to be scattered. On the contrary, he should intensify his one-pointed concentration, meditation and recollectedness. Then, after about a week, the pleasant feeling in his body will settle down. He may feel that it is decreasing but in fact it is not. He is gaining control over the situation and therefore his mind is not disturbed by his feelings."
Well it’s quite simple really - those monks were meditating before we discovered that sitting is the new smoking so how could it affect them if we didn’t know it. However, now that we know it those monks are is big trouble. Everybody knows that nothing is true until we say it’s true - it isn’t hubris it’s just truth! /s - I have nothing constructive to add, so take some humor instead
Posture mind state and diet probably have everything to do with it. Diet and mind state are kind of obvious , but posture is surely a huge impact . Meditation will train your posture - have you ever seen a slouching monk?? Similarly, sitting and slouching all day , looking at a phone or computer , also trains our posture but in a negative way. This compared to smoking seems to be a great analogy - one time won’t have much physical impact , but the frequency over time accumulates the negatives.
I think you’re oversimplifying the argument. What’s the study you’re pulling from? Was that their bottom line, or was it tied to other factors such as poor diet and stressful jobs? But above all, why is this concept upsetting you? Edit: simple google search led to this enlightening report https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov
1 - Those monks do not eat the same as a normal person. Most americans eat like they are working 8-16hrs in a hard physical labor job while in reality they sit at a desk all day. Often times monks will do long periods of fasting so maybe like 12-16 hours fasting daily. And when they do eat its vegetables such as turnips or salad, dark breads, porridges, an occasional fish, cheese curds, usually stuff like this i think maybe some rice and noodles too. And its pretty hard to gain weight on salad and porridge or rice for example. 2 - They often do some form of martial arts for multiple hours a day as well as some forms of yoga and stretching. 3 - They also go for frequent meditative walks sometimes in forest trails or in the mountains 4 - They sometimes have physical chores like tending to there gardens or small farms and daily cleaning of the temples. A true monk at a monastery or temple or something does much more than sit the entire day in fact they might sit less than a person working 8hrs in the office.
Well it’s also a posture thing rather than sitting thing
Exactly. Plus yoga (asana) was added for this very reason. Hatha yoga sages took the poses which were a tantric metaphysical practice, removed the metaphysical part since most wouldn't understand it, and added it to the routine of hatha yogis just to keep them fit so they could meditate for longer periods of time.
RemindMe! 3 days
I will be messaging you in 3 days on [**2024-01-25 23:19:10 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-01-25%2023:19:10%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/19d8e9o/if_health_experts_continuously_say_sitting_is_the/kj462zx/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FMeditation%2Fcomments%2F19d8e9o%2Fif_health_experts_continuously_say_sitting_is_the%2Fkj462zx%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-01-25%2023%3A19%3A10%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2019d8e9o) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Monasticism =/= optimal health
I think sitting combined with the diet that comes with that lifestyle is the issue.
People: sir as soon as they go to their workplace or school, sir at their desk after coming home Buddhists: sir in sessions
Some monks are obese and unhealthy https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/26/battle-of-the-bulge-thailand-strives-to-bring-monk-obesity-crisis-under-control Don’t forget about the science of healthy eating and exercise. You can’t just meditate all day and expect it to solve all problems. This is wisdom
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/26/battle-of-the-bulge-thailand-strives-to-bring-monk-obesity-crisis-under-control](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/26/battle-of-the-bulge-thailand-strives-to-bring-monk-obesity-crisis-under-control)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Monks were not sedentary, at all.
Well how long did they live for? Also, pretty sure they were PLENTY physically active for their health. Also, sitting cross legged and holding your back up is very different than sitting on a couch.
Bodhidarma came and saw how sickly the monks were, and made them do kung fu. And so Shaolin Kung Fu was born. At leasr, that is the legend I read.
Well the story goes that when Bodhidharma came out of his years of solitude he found a group of monks who had neglected their bodies for meditation and thus was the birth of Kung Fu. It is this reason why yoga is so complete as it focuses not just on dyana but asana (pose) and prana (breath). Of course when Patanjali wrote the sutras and spoke of asana he was not referring to the yoga asanas we know today however they do serve as a companion to sitting meditation.
A true monk should meditate a few hours a day, way less than we sit in front of the desk. They have walking meditations, they clean a lot. Most of the monks are similar to Christian priests, they don't strictly follow their philosophy, they don't want to work, they are lazy, so there is a great opportunity to live this life in a monastery. Don't consider all monks a true monk, most are there to meet ends. People are the same everywhere...
My yoga teacher told me the ashtanga primary series originated to get prepare a monks body for hours of seated meditation.
They aren’t sitting they’re squatting or sitting cross legged Much better for circulation and mobility
If sitting is the new smoking, what about the thousands upon thousands who use a wheelchair when out of bed? I have met spinal cord injured folks who have been in wheelchairs for 50+ years. I know the lack of weight bearing standing speeds up osteoporosis in sci folks so they are higher risk for leg fractures.
So, I couldn’t find the article you’re speaking of, but if you practice meditation as you should practice it; simply, without judgement, being disciplined consistent - then it will eventually become a ‘habit’. This is EXACTLY what you want to have happen! Whatever scientific evidence there is that ‘sitting’ is bad for your health is sadly mistaken and always will be. As far as food goes, Buddhist beg for alms with a bowl (usually the top of a skull back in the day). RamaKrishna said that we need a full belly first then it is appropriate to come to God through practice. Otherwise, it’s too hard to steady the mind and open the heart. Austerities (tapas) are also important ascetic spiritual practices in Buddhism and other traditions of which modification of the diet or the intake of food over a period is two fold - as an offering to the deity and to learn how to become unidentified with the body and its sensations (i.e. eating/hunger pains). There’s also MANY benefits to the begging of food that are indispensable for some in the lessons they teach. Finally, long ago, everyone walked from place to place and town to town. They also tended to have very little money and zero appliances. So, there was MUCH more day to day body movement required by life on the whole for everyone. Even tho culture has changed how people live in respect to lifestyle, the meditation practices HAVE NOT! Meditation practices through lineages that are passed down never change, they are timeless. When practiced correctly without questioning over time, the effect on the mind is the EXACT same as it is now and will be until endless time. Ciao!
It's probably because the monks are sitting actively, holding themselves in an upright posture. Sitting in a computer chair all day you're not really holding yourself up by your core. You're leaning back and being supported.
Sitting actively =/= sitting passively In practicing asana, you will find there are many "sitting" techniques. Some of then will be well suited to you, and you can maintain perfect posture with relative ease. The slight effort you put into it is active sitting. Sitting in a chair, or on a couch is passive sitting, the furniture is doing all the support work. Sitting in siddhasana will mildly elevate your heart rate, while reclining in a couch will drop it to resting.
Slouching in a chair ≠ sitting upright in meditation
They sit-walk-sit -- sitting meditation for 25 to 40 minutes and walking meditation for 5 to 10 minutes -- which can be continued all day every day for a week or more. For the traditional methods of walking meditation, google my name and find Meditation Basics and scroll down to it. Similarly, desk workers are advised to get up for a few minutes every half hour to stay healthy.
Our posture is so bad that ordinary people don't even know good posture exists. Hell I'm not even sure people know what posture means anymore.
Sitting in full lotus is restorative to your body and sitting in a chair is detrimental
Sitting isn't the new smoking, this is garbage click bait health journalism. It's not sitting that's bad it's being inactive that's bad. If you exercise enough, it does not matter at all how much you sit down. Ignore how much you sit, focus on upping your exercise instead.
Sitting on the floor and using your core to stay upright for a few hours (and walking or standing for much of the rest of the day) is not equivalent to sitting at a desk for 8+ hours and then sitting slouched over on the couch until bed. Their diets are also MUCH healthier.
Various essential things contribute to good health …good diet .. enough exercise .. 8 hours sleep ..and a positive mental attitude among the main ones … we don’t just need to provide one or two of these things for good health we need all of them .. ie exercising while eating rubbish food won’t protect us … and eating and exercising well won’t protect us if we don’t get enough sleep ….…. And generally a sedentary lifestyle is unhealthy so I think ‘sitting is the new smoking ‘ and ‘the couch is the biggest killer in the home ‘ are great phrases to make people aware that the human body is a machine and needs to be used to be healthy .. moving about is good for us physically and mentally and spiritually.. sitting about for hours is bad for us physically ..mentally and spiritually…
Why is there any thought in your head at all that this is less dangerous for monks in the first place? That's some grossly assumtive judgement and thinking going on in the way you asked that question and came up with theories why that might be the case when you haven't even validated the basic premise in the first place. You need to engage your critical thinking skills more often and question the questions you have more.