The work looks useful and valuable to this area of study. But WaPo and other media outlets persist in a ubiquitous and terrible trend in science reporting, especially those associated with lifestyle and healt : "Here is a study which has different findings than the other studies we've been reporting on, all that research is now overturned! Burn your standing desk!" Of course, in a few months, someone will publish another study calling this one into question, and they'll tell us all to go out and buy new standing desks. As we all know, science doesn't work that way. This study needs to be put into context with other studies, if it contradicts those studies, that needs to be discussed, future studies that might resolve the discrepancy should be identified, limitations on the applicability of this study and on the ones it contradicts should be pointed out, changes in the model we use to understand the effects of mobility and posture on health should be discussed, etc. etc.
Instead, we get serial repetitions of "standing is bad", "standing is good", "it doesn't really matter". I have to look at a calendar to figure out if the caffeine in my coffee is slowly killing me or turning me into a focused super-intellect. Won't someone please, please tell me if I should be ingesting wine and/or chocolate this week?
Audiences of those articles (nutrition, "cheap" health advice, garbage fitness, and so on) simply want trivial, feel-good advice; the media just fulfill that wish.
It's the cultural substrate which is misguided - having an interest in feeling good about something, rather than actually accomplishing it - but this is personal choice.
A lot of science is like that these days. You can find enough evidence for anything because the fact is that you are dealing with people and people are individuals with individual chemistry, at least that's a part of it.
But isn't that the whole point? That unless you are doing certain things to the extreme, they might be good or bad. That things as complex as health are rarely shaped by just one isolated variable.
Story is far more nuanced than the title suggests:
"Our study overturns current thinking on the health risks of sitting and indicates that the problem lies in the absence of movement rather than the time spent sitting itself,"
Translation: sitting is still bad for you, but standing isn't any better, which puts a pin in the standing desk fad.
I argue that standing is better because the bias towards movement is higher. You can (and will) shift your weight around and take more frequent breaks, simply because you don't have to stand up to do so. That might be enough.
You could argue that, but given there's no evidence to support it, it's at best colloquial advice.
And to be perfectly blunt, that sounds more like an attempt to go back and justify the choice of a standing desk after the fact, now that the base assumption ("standing is better than sitting") has been invalidated.
> The work looks useful and valuable to this area of study. But WaPo and other media outlets persist in a ubiquitous and terrible trend in science reporting, especially those associated with lifestyle and healt : "Here is a study which has different findings than the other studies we've been reporting on, all that research is now overturned! Burn your standing desk!" Of course, in a few months, someone will publish another study calling this one into question, and they'll tell us all to go out and buy new standing desks. As we all know, science doesn't work that way. This study needs to be put into context with other studies, if it contradicts those studies, that needs to be discussed, future studies that might resolve the discrepancy should be identified, limitations on the applicability of this study and on the ones it contradicts should be pointed out, changes in the model we use to understand the effects of mobility and posture on health should be discussed, etc. etc
I use a standing desk with multiple terminals laid out so I walk between them. I also agree that while standing you are more likely to take walking breaks or step away for a moment. I also feel like when I'm standing I'm a lot more active then when sitting.
Finally, when I sit I have a habit of slouching while standing I tend to have a much better posture even for extended times.
While a bad back isn't death inducing (usually), we should consider all the benefits of standing over sitting, not just the fact that you may or may not die.
I'm sure I could just as easily trot out examples of folks with bad backs or knees because of extended standing, or due to bad standing posture.
I could probably also find examples of people with circulation problems or other issues as a result of extended standing.
We were sold on the idea that standing, alone, versus sitting, will offset the life shortening effects of being sedentary. Given this study seems to contradict that, the picture is a lot more nuanced.
Actually you're not sure you could do that. When do people ever stand perfectly still for hours on end? We get the difference between anecdotes and data, but it's also ok to formulate testable hypotheses in here.
Anyway this is like saying "Buying a bike won't make you thin". Yes, you have to ride the bike. But the availability of a bike in your house greatly raises the chance that you'll ride on any given day. It's indirect, but still a pretty good idea.
You can't use statistical evidence to invalidate someone's personal experience. It doesn't work that way!
When someone says that a standing desk has helped them, you can't just jump out and say "aha! this study says on average they don't work, therefore that someone is rationalising their purchase".
The best you can say is that it works for some people and not others.
Based on my own experience with a standing desk, I do move significantly more when standing versus sitting. This might be less true in an office environment, where I might feel the need to constrain my movement some to avoid distracting others. But at home, where my standing desk is, it's actually pretty liberating to be able to move around so easily.
This is just an anecdote, but it's hard for me to imagine someone just standing like a statue for hours on end.
Slightly off-topic: whenever that kind of argument comes up, I think of Rietveld's "sitting is something you do" (1) reply when people complained that sitting wasn't comfortable on chairs of his design (most famous example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_and_Blue_Chair)
Sit on such a chair, and I bet you will take more breaks than when using a standing desk.
(1) the literal translation would be "to sit is a verb", with word play on "verb" = "working word", but that is hard to translate.
Why not? I have hip flexor problems and knee problems. I used to have a standing desk at work. Being able to constantly shift and go from sitting to standing was really good for me. The small movement prevented my muscles from getting too cold.
It was also great for my posture.
But then again, I didn't switch to a standing desk to decrease my mortality rate.
> Translation: sitting is still bad for you, but standing
> isn't any better, which puts a pin in the standing desk fad.
Unfortunately the study [1] did not quantify standing at all! They only measured (self-reported) time spent sitting, so they really shouldn't make any claims about standing desks or even standing generally. I suppose there is an implicit assumption that time not spent sitting is time spent standing, but that is pretty weak in my opinion.
Furthermore, I don't think that aggregate time spent sitting is the right measure. We know that uninterrupted sitting is a known risk factor for deep vein thrombosis because since calf muscle contractions are important for preventing blood clots in the leg vasculature [2]. So a better measure would be the length of continuous sitting without breaks. It's very plausible that 300 minutes of sitting with 10 minute breaks every 50 minutes might be healthier than sitting for 5 hours straight without any breaks at all (and then taking an hour break at the end).
2. I note that the calf muscles are continuously contracting while standing. So standing desks could be a good idea for persons with increased risk of DVT. Of course, standing desks might not confer any benefit over simply standing periodically. This should be studied directly.
One of the common reasons I always here for standing desks is that you burn more calories standing and thus helps to reduce weight vs. sitting. This still seems to be true and would seem to provide a secondary health benefit over sitting, in terms of weight loss.
Cutting through likely sarcasm, those are INCREDIBLY AWKWARD. I tried to use a very similar device for quite some time, and it's just- impossibly awkward to use. 0/10 would not recommend.
Our study overturns current thinking on the health risks of sitting and indicates that the problem lies in the absence of movement rather than the time spent sitting itself,
I have a sit/stand desk. I think I'm more likely to take a short walking break if I'm already standing. In this case, the study merely moves sitting from being a direct cause to being an indirect cause.
This is a (somewhat) misleading headline and report.
The report refers to a study which says that sitting is no worse than standing without moving the body.
However, the report does nothing to contradict past studies which show that sitting is bad for the body (in comparison with standing up and walking every n minutes).
A better way of reading the study would be to say that "sitting" and "standing without moving" are equally bad. A lot of other research suggests that sitting for hours is definitely worse than taking a break every hour (or n minutes) and walking for a couple of minutes in that break.
Ok, we replaced the title with your description, in accordance with the HN guideline, "Please use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait."
Right, I felt like the report just basically said that standing all day was not going to improve your health dramatically. Which I agree with. Standing is a sedentary activity.
But the article made it seem like "your standing desk is a waste of money!" Which I disagree with, mostly based on personal experience. [1]
[1] I started standing about a year or so ago after getting into more athletic endeavors like olympic weightlifting. My flexibility today is far, far better now that I stand... and lift regularly. Sitting = tight hips.
I think sitting might be bad for you in some ways. When you sit, your glutes are not activated so they become weak since they're not used (in the absence of any exercise) so your back suffers. At least if you stand, your glutes are used/activated. It might not increase your longevity but you'll probably have better posture.
Those studies never really proved sitting was itself bad for you. Just correlated with bad health. Since standing without moving is just as bad, I'd hypothesize that sitting isn't bad for you at all.
Sitting just happens to be highly correlated with a sedentary lifestyle.
Aren't people who spend their days sitting behind a desk also more likely to be more wealthy than, say, people who do heavy construction work all day long? Did they factor in the effects of this difference?
Perhaps the extra years gained from being more wealthy are negated by sitting all day.
Most Westerners can't kneel or squat properly, mostly due to sitting. That definitely has health implications, even if it's not lethal. And it's a lot harder to get that mobility back than it is to lose it.
It's not just that -- at least in the corner of the West where I grew up, kneeling and squatting were actually discouraged in young children as somehow unhealthy (to your knees, iirc).
I can only give anecdotal evidence on this. I prefer to walk on my treadmill desk which tends to have less impact on my knees and hips. Standing or sitting without motion will eventually tire me or cause some pain, though I generally find I'm likely to move around more while standing. Sitting for too long just tires me out.
I rotate through all 3 though throughout the day, so if my knees are bothering me or I feel like taking a break, I'll sit down for a bit.
The most important thing once I starting using the treadmill though was investing in decent shoes.
Dr Melvyn Hillsdon -
"The results cast doubt on the benefits of sit-stand work stations, which employers are increasingly providing to promote healthy working environments."
I too don't like the result but the study is pretty clear.
How this study could contradict a large body of evidence to the contrary I can only see as it being a
#3 is not exactly correct. Young people should sleep 9 hours a day whether or not it feels like you 'need' the sleep. Many people will feel fine after 6-7 hours of sleep in the morning, but studies have shown that even if you feel rested you will not perform as well on cognitive tasks if you do not get 9 hours.
I think your comment is characterizing exactly what I say not to do, even if you might be right.
My comment is about staying healthy over the duration of your life. It's also about doing what you can and not sweating the small stuff. Studying hard and sleeping 6 hours will get you better test results than sleeping 9 hours and not studying. Your comment is splitting hairs about a small increase and missing the point....
Between that and the VW Diesel scandal this is a tough month for silly environmentalist/health trends. Next thing you know someone will figure out getting a company to collect your banana peels for composting is bad for the earth.
has been standing for 4 months. About a month ago noticed that my diaphragm has, for the lack of better word, "got straightened". Sitting, probably very incorrect, for 36 years - since the first grade in school - i always thought that it is just my body construction that i have that difficulty breathing full lungs while swimming or running. Lower back also feels better where it matters. And you can't really move while sitting whereis standing you do move a bit - like walking back and forward while waiting for that beast to rebuild.
Seems interesting to me that most of the discussion is sitting vs standing, when the results seem to indicate that the important distinction is moving vs not.
What about sitting on the floor, cross legged or legs extended. Would that be better than sitting on the chair. Any study on that matter would be good too.
I suspect it would be better, but I would also like to see a study. I work from home and have been experimenting with fairly non-traditional setups:
- sitting on a small stool with no back support.
- sitting cross legged at a low table
- standing with my keyboard at about elbow height.
All three are surprisingly good. I thought I would miss a chair, but I do not in any way. The stool is the least effort, but requires me to be careful of posture or else I get sore muscles. Standing is quite nice as long as I remember to keep shifting my weight around. Sitting cross legged is still difficult for me (lack of flexibility) for more than a few hours, but probably makes me feel the best when I'm done.
Eventually I want to transition to sitting cross legged for most of the day, but I think it will require a concerted effort at training my body to accept it. I'm a bit worried about blood circulation in the legs, though.
My "office furniture" has come in quite a bit under budget with these schemes, though. I spent the equivalent of $10 on the stool. I use my closet (which has a surprisingly convenient shelf in just the right place) for standing.
Instead, we get serial repetitions of "standing is bad", "standing is good", "it doesn't really matter". I have to look at a calendar to figure out if the caffeine in my coffee is slowly killing me or turning me into a focused super-intellect. Won't someone please, please tell me if I should be ingesting wine and/or chocolate this week?