tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/standing-meetings-2122/articlesStanding meetings – The Conversation2018-07-02T13:23:26Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/992232018-07-02T13:23:26Z2018-07-02T13:23:26ZYou should stand in meetings – don’t worry about what others might think<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225712/original/file-20180702-116114-sgzkbi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We like to move it move it.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Standing in meetings may be good for our health, but it can also make those that are standing feel self-conscious, anxious about how others perceive them, and disengaged from the meeting. These findings, <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198483">taken from our recent study</a>, suggest that efforts to encourage office workers to sit less and move more must acknowledge the realities of the workplace that conspire to keep people chained to their seats.</p>
<p>Sitting has been linked to adverse health outcomes, including increased risk of obesity, heart disease, some cancers, and poorer mental health. While some evidence suggests that the harms of sitting can be offset by <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%252816%252930370-1.pdf">at least one daily hour of moderate physical activity</a>, this seems an unrealistic target. Most of the UK population fails to meet physical activity recommendations and spends prolonged periods sitting. Office workers, who make up half of the UK workforce, are particularly inactive. Our <a href="https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-014-1338-1">2015 study of 164 London workers</a> found that, on workdays, they sat for 10.5 hours of the 16 hours they spent awake.</p>
<p>Breaking up sitting frequently with periods of standing and associated light activity can have important health benefits. <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%252Fs00421-015-3279-5">Standing burns more calories than sitting</a> and can <a href="https://oem.bmj.com/content/71/2/109">improve the way our body uses glucose</a>, which could reduce risk of cardiometabolic diseases. Standing may also encourage movement, and so may promote more physical activity at work.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225713/original/file-20180702-116143-1nyxhqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225713/original/file-20180702-116143-1nyxhqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225713/original/file-20180702-116143-1nyxhqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225713/original/file-20180702-116143-1nyxhqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225713/original/file-20180702-116143-1nyxhqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225713/original/file-20180702-116143-1nyxhqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225713/original/file-20180702-116143-1nyxhqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The evolution of most office workers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Standing in meetings offers the opportunity to sit less and move more. Meetings are a staple of office culture, and <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232529574_The_effects_of_stand-up_and_sit-down_meeting_formats_on_meeting_outcomes">standing meetings can be more efficient and shorter</a>. Yet, aside from the tech sector, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301559978_The_Daily_Standup_Meeting_A_Grounded_Theory_Study">where standing meetings are commonplace</a>, most office workers generally don’t stand in meetings. Changing the sitting norm may depend largely on individual employees choosing to stand in workplace settings that are normally seated.</p>
<h2>Social minefield</h2>
<p>But what does it feel like to stand when all others are sitting? In our recent study, we asked 25 participants to identify three meetings that they already planned to attend. We instructed them to stand at some point in each meeting, for as long as they wished, and <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198483">we interviewed them about their experiences</a> after each meeting.</p>
<p>Some participants found standing unexpectedly physically taxing, reporting aches and pains, though this seemed to have arisen from their attempts to stand for the duration of the meeting. We did not instruct them to stand for the entirety of the meeting; because prolonged static standing can also harm health, the best strategy is to alternate between standing and sitting, or to move – for example, by rocking on your heels – while standing.</p>
<p>But the biggest issue people had with standing in meetings was that they found it a social minefield. The people we interviewed felt self-conscious while standing and worried that other attendees would see them as “attention seekers” because they were breaking an unwritten rule by not sitting. </p>
<p>Some were concerned that standing when the meeting host was sitting would be seen as a challenge to the host’s authority. Others worried that their standing would be interpreted as a lack of commitment to the meeting, as if they were getting ready to leave. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225715/original/file-20180702-116123-15mrm7j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225715/original/file-20180702-116123-15mrm7j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225715/original/file-20180702-116123-15mrm7j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225715/original/file-20180702-116123-15mrm7j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225715/original/file-20180702-116123-15mrm7j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225715/original/file-20180702-116123-15mrm7j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225715/original/file-20180702-116123-15mrm7j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Whose right is it to stand up?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These concerns were most pronounced in serious or formal meetings. One person, for example, felt that it was inappropriate to stand when discussing job losses, for fear of being perceived to be belittling the seriousness of the meeting topic.</p>
<p>Our participants commonly dealt with these problems by standing in a position where they felt less visible to other people – but by doing so, some felt isolated, and less able to engage fully in the meeting.</p>
<h2>The upside</h2>
<p>There were some work-related benefits to standing, though. When hosting, participants felt that standing gave them greater confidence and authority. Others reported that standing kept them focused, not only because they were more visible to others, but also because they would normally “switch off” when sitting for long periods.</p>
<p>Attempts to support standing at work must acknowledge the complex unwritten social rules that govern office meetings. Our participants felt most at ease when they had forewarned other attendees – particularly the meeting host – that they intended to stand. Meeting hosts could suggest that attendees stand when contributing to a group discussion, and that attendees stand to applaud at the end of presentation-based meetings. There may also be relatively simple, practical ways of achieving this, such as removing some chairs from the room.</p>
<p>Perhaps more importantly, given the pervasive culture of sitting cited by our participants, employers should strive to create a culture that makes standing more normal. Elsewhere we have shown that when managers endorse breaks from sitting, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28339829">this facilitates standing and movement</a> in the workplace. Greater provision of meeting spaces with high tables and stools would not only provide physical and practical support, but also demonstrate that standing and moving between sitting and standing is acceptable. </p>
<p>Employees should ideally be involved in decisions to modify their ways of working, such as by making changes to office or meeting room layouts. This kind of engagement can <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00140139.2017.1303085">also improve everyone in the office’s well-being</a>. And employers and employees alike would surely agree that employee health and well-being is something for which we should all take a stand.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99223/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin Gardner received funding from the Medical Research Council (grant number MR/N008979/1), part of which went towards the research mentioned in this article. The MRC had no role in the preparation of decision to publish this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lee Smith received funding from the Medical Research Council (grant number MR/N008979/1), part of which went towards the research mentioned in this article. The MRC had no role in the preparation of decision to publish this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Louise Mansfield receives funding to conduct research on sport and physical activity from the Economic and Social Research Council, Sport England, StreetGames, the Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.</span></em></p>Standing in meetings offers the opportunity to sit less and move more.Benjamin Gardner, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, King's College LondonLee Smith, Senior Lecturer in Exercise Medicine, Anglia Ruskin UniversityLouise Mansfield, Professor of Sport, Health and Social Sciences, Brunel University LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/366782015-03-20T10:07:09Z2015-03-20T10:07:09ZBeware the perils of groupthink, yet meetings can still be useful<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75239/original/image-20150318-2490-ymcvv8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Meetings can devolve into lemming-like groupthink if not well led. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Blind leading blind from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Everyone has had bad experiences in meetings at work. </p>
<p>Perhaps you’ve been subjected to weekly or even daily “feed-forward” briefings in which someone one pay-grade higher insists on reviewing information that everyone could much more efficiently receive in another form. </p>
<p>Or there is the “clueless session,” in which someone who is supposed to solve a problem on his or her own, but hasn’t, calls a meeting instead. The aim is usually to get someone else to think up an easy solution or, absent a good solution, to dodge the responsibility for not solving the problem in the first place by attributing it to “the group.” </p>
<p>Behavioral scientists have seized on this “meeting malaise” and captured attention by bashing these office gatherings and face-to-face teamwork in general. But not all meetings are pointless – and face-to-face dealings are indeed essential for certain types of decision making. </p>
<p>Research I conducted with Cass Sunstein showed that leaders play a pivotal role in determining whether meetings lead to solutions or are hijacked by the tendency for “groupthink.” We’ve highlighted several techniques managers can follow to bring out the best in their groups. </p>
<h2>How meetings got a bad rap</h2>
<p>The late research psychologist Irving Janis popularized the concept of how meetings can result in “<a href="http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm">groupthink</a>,” or the tendency of members of a group to over-conform to a bullying or charismatic leader. This leads to faulty decisions as participants’ mental efficiency and moral judgment deteriorate, he argued. </p>
<p>More recently New Yorker business columnist James Surowiecki <a href="http://faculty.msb.edu/homak/homahelpsite/WebHelp%20061813/Wisdom_of_Crowds_-_Book_Summary.pdf">has promoted</a> the value of collective intelligence methods using advanced software to replace the need for meetings and other face-to-face encounters. These include prediction markets (betting on outcomes), online tournaments (to pick winning ideas) and even just taking statistical averages. He suggests such methods bring out the “Wisdom of Crowds” idea he coined, without the pitfalls of groupthink. </p>
<p>The message from these pundits is that we should avoid traditional social teamwork and that non-social aggregation methods can perform many of the tasks that we used to perform with face-to-face teamwork. University of Pennsylvania marketing professor Scott Armstrong takes the implications of these essays to the extreme in a <a href="http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048&context=marketing_papers">provocative paper</a> sub-titled, “Avoid Face-To-Face Meetings.”</p>
<p>Sunstein and I believe that there is value in rethinking the necessity of some meetings, such as pointless feed-forward meetings or clueless problem-solving sessions, but other types of interactions still hold value. Getting the balance just right is the tricky part. In a <a href="https://hbr.org/product/wiser-getting-beyond-groupthink-to-make-groups-smarter/2299-HBK-ENG">recent book</a> we co-authored, “Wiser: Getting Beyond Groupthink to Make Groups Smarter,” we extend and refine the catalog of group failures and biases that was started by Janis, Surowiecki and others, while identifying areas where they got it wrong. </p>
<h2>Biases and bad habits</h2>
<p>It turns out, of course, that traditional groups exacerbate some individual judgment and decision biases. Examples include the planning fallacy, in which people underestimate how much time will be needed to complete a task, and the sunk costs fallacy, irrationally investing more in a project because so much has been put into it already, when it would be better to just let it go. </p>
<p>And, like Surowiecki and Armstrong, we are enthusiastic about exploring innovative alternatives to traditional face-to-face procedures, like prediction markets, tournaments and the Delphi Method (a type of forecasting that relies on a panel of experts). </p>
<p>But groups also cure some individual bad habits. Among these are anchoring (a tendency to rely on the first piece of evidence offered), availability (overestimating unlikely events) and some forms of narrow framing. And we believe that the Surowiecki and Armstrong advice can be over-generalized, especially when a group is producing more than a focused forecast or estimate.</p>
<p>You may be able to produce an excellent forecast of the Oscar winners by using a prediction market or a even simple “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/upshot/oscars-2015-an-excellent-night-for-prediction-markets.html?_r=0">central tendency statistic</a>.” But you are not going to produce a film that might win an Oscar without extensive face-to-face teamwork. And most of the collective tasks performed in industry (and in other organizations) are more like creating an Oscar-worthy movie than forecasting the winners at the Academy Awards.</p>
<h2>The pivotal role of leaders</h2>
<p>This is where the important role of leaders come into play, to prevent groupthink and bring out the best in their employees. Our research has led us to techniques that a manager can use to work more effectively in traditional face-to-face teams. Our most important advice is aimed at the leadership role. </p>
<p>We like leaders who are “anxious” and self-critical. We like managers who “lead from behind” by constantly seeking unshared information and who nudge team members to express constructive dissent. </p>
<p>We note that most problem-solving processes can be broken down into three stages: generating candidate solutions, selecting the best solution and then implementing that solution. Then we prescribe somewhat different methods to make each stage most productive; along with the advice to separate the stages from one another. </p>
<p>For example, it is a common mistake to mix up the solution-generation process and the solution-selection process. Shifting too soon to a critical “selection” frame of mind can stifle the effort to generate solutions. Another mistake is to promote optimism and overconfidence, attitudes that make the later implementation stage work well but are unhelpful earlier in the process when a cold, objective view is needed during.</p>
<h2>When are meetings necessary?</h2>
<p>When sitting in a pointless, boring meeting, it may be pleasant to imagine an organization without such sessions. So, a first piece of good advice is to ask yourself, “do we need a meeting or a face-to-face team to solve this problem?” If the answer is “no,” then by all means use an alternative method like a statistical decision rule or tournament. </p>
<p>But the fact is that the answer will frequently be “yes.” Meetings and other forms of face-to-face teamwork are simply necessary to solve many tasks. So, let’s try to be wiser and learn to work most effectively in teams, when teamwork is necessary.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36678/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Reid Hastie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Meetings can be a real drag, but they’re still essential for certain types of decision-making.Reid Hastie, Professor of Behavioral Science, University of ChicagoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/25782012-01-17T02:38:49Z2012-01-17T02:38:49ZGet up, stand up – if not you’ll be a sitting duck<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6978/original/mzv66t2x-1326767413.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sedentary lifestyles are a bigger threat than you might realise.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bob Elderberry</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Most of us know that overweight and obesity have reached crisis proportions in Australia but fewer people realise the <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=6442467990">death toll</a> attributable to inactivity (13,491 a year) is even greater than the deaths linked to excess weight (9,525) and almost as high as for using tobacco (15,511). </p>
<p>So why aren’t we as aware of the price of inactivity as we should be? </p>
<h2>What research shows</h2>
<p><a href="http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2489760">Agenda-setting research</a> shows that what the media deems to be important influences what the public thinks is important. And <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2009.00368.x/full">media research</a> shows that obesity gets far more news media coverage than physical activity. </p>
<p>A study I led which was published earlier this year found most television stories about physical activity are presented as infotainment (40%), and only treated as “hard news” 18% of the time. About a quarter of the items my colleagues and I analysed for the study were broadcast in current affairs shows while 12% were soft news items. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6899/original/pdfv59fm-1326336657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6899/original/pdfv59fm-1326336657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=645&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6899/original/pdfv59fm-1326336657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=645&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6899/original/pdfv59fm-1326336657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=645&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6899/original/pdfv59fm-1326336657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=810&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6899/original/pdfv59fm-1326336657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=810&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6899/original/pdfv59fm-1326336657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=810&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jens Schott Knudsen</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So, while physical activity does get coverage, it’s <a href="http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/187_08_151007/bon10486_fm.html">not treated with the urgency</a> of hard news, in the way that, say, obesity is. We also found stories were far more likely to discuss the benefits of physical activity (265 mentions) than the risks (57). </p>
<p>This could be good news for champions of exercise, but the risks of being inactive received even less attention (40). The worry is that the major risks of inactivity may be sneaking under the news radar.</p>
<p>When the risks of inactivity were mentioned, the main problem was seen as being overweight (62% of risks mentioned), with heart disease and diabetes coming a distant second and third (10% each). Death rarely featured (2.5%) and cancer was not mentioned even though inactivity is known to raise the risk of colorectal cancer and breast cancer as well as heart disease, stroke and diabetes.</p>
<h2>Personal responsibility?</h2>
<p>Most Australians are <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4835.0.55.001">not sufficiently active</a> (ABS, 2006) because there are many barriers to activity – especially time and money. The barriers most commonly reported by the 91 television items we analysed were sedentary lifestyle, lack of time and physical incapacity. </p>
<p>The main solutions provided included modifying the timing of your exercise by getting up earlier, for instance, setting goals and monitoring your progress, having team spirit and getting motivated. There was a dearth of attention to governments’, employers’ or industries’ role in making it easier to be active by providing facilities, for instance, or improving public transport and educating the public.</p>
<p>Being sufficiently active was portrayed largely as a personal responsibility and much less the responsibility of government or industry. When responsibility <em>was</em> mentioned, 38% of the blame was laid on individuals and 13% on parents. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6977/original/7mjsgg2t-1326767154.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6977/original/7mjsgg2t-1326767154.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6977/original/7mjsgg2t-1326767154.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6977/original/7mjsgg2t-1326767154.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6977/original/7mjsgg2t-1326767154.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6977/original/7mjsgg2t-1326767154.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6977/original/7mjsgg2t-1326767154.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shawnporter</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some items suggested government responsibility (13%), some mentioned instructors (11%) but less than one in ten mentioned industry (gyms and health insurers, for instance). Employers escaped despite their power over our daily lives and the efforts some employers are already making to help workers be more active.</p>
<h2>Acting against inactivity</h2>
<p>So are you able to think on your feet? You need to know the answer to this because if more employers take up the challenge, you may soon be invited to a <a href="http://content.mycareer.com.au/advice-research/workplace/Exercise-discretion.aspx">“feeting”</a> rather than a meeting or get swept along by the boss with the words, “walk with me” or “run” or “jog” – while discussing the issue at hand.</p>
<p>If you’re asked to join a mobile meeting, it could be a very good idea to say yes. But this raises the question of whether fitness should be foisted on people. Employers can encourage physical activity without demanding it. Some meetings can be held standing up as long as this doesn’t exclude people who are not fit or well enough to take part.</p>
<p>Reasonable working hours would make a huge difference. And easy-to-locate, attractive staircases; handy showers; secure and convenient bike racks; fun group activities; subsidised lunchtime activities catering to varying levels of ability; standing work stations; and providing space for physical activity would also help. Governments could boost their efforts to provide better public transport, more and safer recreational areas, and healthier urban planning.</p>
<p>Australian news media are getting <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004831">better at reporting health risks</a> but if the inactivity crisis is going to ring alarm bells in audiences’ minds, researchers and journalists will need to work together to focus the news media spotlight on this deadly risk factor.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2578/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catriona Bonfiglioli receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the University of Technology, Sydney. She is employed by the University of Technology, Sydney. She is an honorary associate of The University of Sydney. This article reports on research funded by the NSW Department of Health. We acknowledge the contribution of research assistant Isla Tooth. Thanks to Lesley King and Ben J. Smith for their comments on drafts of this article.</span></em></p>Most of us know that overweight and obesity have reached crisis proportions in Australia but fewer people realise the death toll attributable to inactivity (13,491 a year) is even greater than the deaths…Catriona Bonfiglioli, Senior Lecturer, Media Studies, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.