Why is your quote from the article meaningful while mine is not? It's right there!
"What's particularly interesting about recent research is the revelation that sitting for extended periods of time does significant damage to human health that cannot be undone by exercising."
Crappy reporting on science as usual, but it says it right there "recent research" + "revelation" + "sitting for extended periods" + "damage" + "cannot be undone by exercising."
Because I find it less likely for the reporter to get basic facts wrong. Conclusions are more subtle, and I don't know if it's the reporter's own conclusions, the reporter's interpretation of the conclusions from the original study, or an almost direct lift from the conclusions from the original study. Since the data the reporter does present does not support the conclusions he presents, I remain skeptical of them.
"What's particularly interesting about recent research is the revelation that sitting for extended periods of time does significant damage to human health that cannot be undone by exercising."
Crappy reporting on science as usual, but it says it right there "recent research" + "revelation" + "sitting for extended periods" + "damage" + "cannot be undone by exercising."