5 ms·

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

by 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.

by zzalpha 11y ago

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.