Every time an article about the (very important!) dangers of sitting makes the rounds, it always brings in people with a bad case of switcheroo fever, who come

Every time an article about the (very important!) dangers of sitting makes the rounds, it always brings in people with a bad case of switcheroo fever, who come in and say something to the effect of "well actually, standing can cause injuries too!" But that's never followed up with any clear conclusions about the relative dangers of standing vs. sitting. The conversation is left with a dangling implication that maybe standing is just as bad as sitting. Or worse, we're left with a vague, open ended exhortation about how the body is really complicated. This always annoys the heck out of me. At a bare minimum, we should at least be able to come away from these articles with the conclusion that we shouldn't sit for substantial periods, and that we definitely should throw ourselves into some other alternative, whatever it's complications are. The risk of injuries from standing should be mitigated however they have to be mitigated, but it we shouldn't let that complication muddy the waters on the more fundamental point about sedentary behavior still being bad even if the alternatives have problems too.