10 ms·

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

by zzalpha 11y ago

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. Guess it's time to get one of these! http://www.amazon.com/DeskCycle-Exercise-Pedal-Exerciser-White/dp/B00B1VDNQA http://www.amazon.com/DeskCycle-Exercise-Pedal-Exerciser-Whi...

djtriptych 11y ago
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.
- zzalpha 11y ago
  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.
  - ioquatix 11y ago
    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.
    - zzalpha 11y ago
      Yes, I'm sure all of this is true. For you. You are an anecdote, not data. 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.
      - djtriptych 11y ago
        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.
        zzalpha 11y ago
        but it's also ok to formulate testable hypotheses in here. That's a bit odd... you're basically advocating "[formulating] testable hypotheses" simply to post-justify a choice you've already made. That's basically science backwards... It's also human nature. We all love to rationalize. But we can at least see it for what it is. :) Edit: Incidentally, I have personally witnessed the fact that buying a bike has absolutely no correlation with frequency of riding it... ;)
        alextgordon 11y ago
        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.
  - RickHull 11y ago
    > now that the base assumption ("standing is better than sitting") has been invalidated. This is not true. This invalid conclusion mirrors the lament that a commenter posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10389475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10389475 > 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
  - nilkn 11y ago
    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.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- vtlynch 11y ago
  I dont think shifting your weight around really counts as movement
  - djtriptych 11y ago
    It does. That's what yoga is.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 11y ago
    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.
  - glenstein 11y ago
    I think it counts as "incidental" physical activity which has been studied for its health benefits. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/fidgeting-your-way-to-fitness/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/fidgeting-your-way-...
- ljk 11y ago
  Also it's better for the back since there's nothing to lean back on
- Someone 11y ago
  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 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.
eikenberry 11y ago
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.
- ljk 11y ago
  Also it's easier to move around habitually when standing up, or at least for me it's that way
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
bweitzman 11y ago
Personally I find standing helps me focus more. When I sit I get sleepy. Especially after lunch
CosmicHorrorSam 11y ago
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.
- killerpopiller 11y ago
  it doesn't even produce power
joeyo 11y ago
> 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). 1. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/10/09/ije.dyv191.full http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/10/09/ije.d... 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.

by zzalpha 11y ago

djtriptych 11y ago

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.

zzalpha 11y ago
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.
- ioquatix 11y ago
  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.
  - zzalpha 11y ago
    Yes, I'm sure all of this is true. For you. You are an anecdote, not data. 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.
    - djtriptych 11y ago
      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.
      - zzalpha 11y ago
        but it's also ok to formulate testable hypotheses in here. That's a bit odd... you're basically advocating "[formulating] testable hypotheses" simply to post-justify a choice you've already made. That's basically science backwards... It's also human nature. We all love to rationalize. But we can at least see it for what it is. :) Edit: Incidentally, I have personally witnessed the fact that buying a bike has absolutely no correlation with frequency of riding it... ;)
        alextgordon 11y ago
        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.
- RickHull 11y ago
  > now that the base assumption ("standing is better than sitting") has been invalidated. This is not true. This invalid conclusion mirrors the lament that a commenter posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10389475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10389475 > 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
- nilkn 11y ago
  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.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
vtlynch 11y ago
I dont think shifting your weight around really counts as movement
- djtriptych 11y ago
  It does. That's what yoga is.
- 2muchcoffeeman 11y ago
  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.
- glenstein 11y ago
  I think it counts as "incidental" physical activity which has been studied for its health benefits. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/fidgeting-your-way-to-fitness/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/fidgeting-your-way-...
ljk 11y ago
Also it's better for the back since there's nothing to lean back on
Someone 11y ago
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 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.

eikenberry 11y ago

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.

ljk 11y ago
Also it's easier to move around habitually when standing up, or at least for me it's that way
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

bweitzman 11y ago

Personally I find standing helps me focus more. When I sit I get sleepy. Especially after lunch

CosmicHorrorSam 11y ago

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.

killerpopiller 11y ago
it doesn't even produce power

joeyo 11y ago

> 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). 1. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/10/09/ije.dyv191.full http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/10/09/ije.d... 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.