5 ms·

What is your point? You criticize the author for claiming there is no evidence that standing desks improve health, yet you provide absolutely no evidence to the

• dymk 8y ago
  That’s not how the burden of proof works. The author claims that they’re “overrated”, yet doesn’t provide evidence to support that claim. We shouldn’t be so used to headlines not matching up with article content, but then again, it’s 2018.
  • jboy55 8y ago
    I think he does provide enough evidence. He provides studies that show no difference between sitting and standing in regards to cardiovascular health. He even provides an alternate hypothesis, that 'sitting' is a marker of poor health decisions not the cause of it. I'm not sure what evidence you are looking for?
    • dymk 8y ago
      I'm looking for evidence that it's "overrated". "Overrated" here means they're valued as a tool to improve cardiovascular health, when they don't provide that benefit. I've never actually seen a standing desk advertised, or even recommended, as a tool for improving cardiovascular health. So I don't see how they can be "rated" as such. I use a standing desk sometimes because it breaks up the monotony of sitting, and because sometimes I want to stretch my legs. It does well in that regard, and that's what I see them being advertised for.
• keymone 8y ago
  The sitting desks are overrated. There is not enough evidence to support the claim that sitting desks improve health. Sitting desks are a ploy by chair manufacturing industry to make you buy expensive chairs even though all experts agree that sitting does not replace exercise.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]