In a compelling new development that challenges popular notions of physical health, a Harvard University professor’s book asserts that humans may actually be evolutionarily built for sitting, rather than for long-distance running or relentless physical activity. This argument, summarized in a recent summary report, invites readers to reconsider ingrained beliefs—particularly the now-infamous comparison that “sitting is the new smoking”—and urges a reassessment of how we live, work, and exercise in modern society source.
The conversation over sedentary lifestyles has dominated global health debates for more than a decade, with countless studies linking prolonged sitting to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and even early mortality. In Thailand, where urbanization and screen-based jobs are rising, such claims have spurred nationwide health campaigns urging citizens to get up and move more often. Yet this new academic perspective from Harvard shakes the very foundations of these public health messages, offering research-based evidence that our evolutionary past may not be as closely tied to perpetual movement as once thought.
Key facts from the Harvard professor’s forthcoming book, as reported by the article’s lead and supported by additional scientific literature, suggest that the human body is strikingly adapted to conserve energy via sitting and resting. Contrary to the assumption that our prehistoric ancestors ran great distances daily as hunter-gatherers, the professor reportedly argues that humans evolved energy-efficient behaviors, where sitting played a vital role in survival and longevity. Supporting research in evolutionary biology shows that among contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, like Tanzania’s Hadza, substantial portions of the day are spent sitting or reclining—sometimes as much as nine or more hours—often engaged in social or productive activities rather than in continuous physical exertion Nature News, 2020.
Expert opinions are divided. On the one hand, medical professionals, including prominent cardiologists from Bangkok’s leading hospitals, continue to point out that sedentary office work—especially when combined with poor dietary habits and stress—remains a primary public health threat. “It’s important to understand the difference between inactivity and natural rest,” explained a senior physician at a national cardiac center. “Evolutionary tendencies toward sitting should not excuse the detrimental effects of our current urban lifestyles, where movement is often replaced with passive screen time and ultra-processed foods.”
On the other hand, anthropologists and evolutionary medicine experts note that the Harvard professor’s findings add nuance to the debate. They clarify that what matters most is not the act of sitting itself, but rather the context, frequency, and intermittent activity patterns associated with it. “In our pre-modern environment, sitting was naturally interspersed with frequent standing, walking, and manual tasks—very different from being glued to a screen or confined in a car during Bangkok rush hour,” said a Thai university anthropologist.
For Thailand’s urban workers, this raises important implications. Efforts to mimic the “ancestral” lifestyle by rushing to gyms after a long workday or adopting fad diets may be less relevant than building natural, frequent movement back into daily routines. Encouraging walking meetings, traditional floor seating at meals, or short breaks for household chores could yield more practical health benefits than rigid exercise prescriptions, aligning more closely with both ancient and modern evidence.
Historically, Thai culture has long embraced floor-based sitting, squatting, and social gathering as part of daily life—a tradition now being displaced by office chairs, sofas, and phones. Elders in rural communities still report fewer chronic pains and greater mobility than their city counterparts, perhaps reflecting more natural sitting and movement patterns aligned with the latest research.
Looking ahead, health policy in Thailand—and globally—may need to move beyond alarmist headlines about the perils of sitting. As research evolves, public health campaigns could shift their focus to emphasize the dangers of “passive inactivity” while promoting “active rest” models found in both the evolutionary record and traditional Thai lifestyles. Schools and workplaces may benefit from reintroducing culturally familiar forms of low-seated activity and encouraging diverse movement throughout the day.
For Thai readers seeking actionable guidance, the best takeaways are to stand up and move intermittently, embrace traditional floor-based postures, and avoid long, uninterrupted stretches of passive sitting. The real lesson from this Harvard professor’s book is not that sitting itself is “bad,” but that the quality and context of our rest matter as much as our exercise routines.
For those interested in learning more about the research and its wider health implications, sources such as Nature, CDC, and recent global studies on physical activity offer further insights.