3 ms·
I concur the review linked is more about effectiveness of intervention methods. My point was that it's been so thoroughly highlighted that we need bigger sample
by semi-extrinsic 8y ago
I concur the review linked is more about effectiveness of intervention methods. My point was that it's been so thoroughly highlighted that we need bigger sample sizes, and yet here we are with N=15.
As for "invalidating the health benefits of standing vs sitting", here is a well-designed study [1] (N=7300 and 12-year span) that found
"""
Occupations involving predominantly standing were associated with an approximately 2-fold risk of heart disease compared with occupations involving predominantly sitting. This association was robust to adjustment for other health, sociodemographic, and work variables.
"""
I.e. I think we can reasonably claim that the jury is still out on the health benefits of standing desks etc.
OTOH, that increased exercise is a good thing is undisputed.
[1] https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/187/1/27/4081581 https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/187/1/27/4081581
- Bartweiss 8y agoThanks, that's a really interesting result - especially in the face of countless headlines (with weak supporting data) about the dangers of sitting. I'm curious to see what "adjustment for work variables" means, since that's such an open-ended task. I'm also fascinated to see: "Cardiovascular risk associated with occupations that involve combinations of sitting, standing, and walking differed for men and women, with these occupations associated with lower cardiovascular risk estimates among men but elevated risk estimates among women." I would have guessed that mixed position, moderately-active work was drastically better than anything else across all groups. I'd be surprised if the paradoxical gender result holds, normally those imply a weak or confounded effect, but even if it's simply neutral that means my expectations were massively wrong.