4 ms·

I don't get it: the actual study (which they even link to) appears to draw the exact opposite conclusion: http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/Pub/HFlabReports/EHARep

by raldi 15y ago

I don't get it: the actual study (which they even link to) appears to draw the exact opposite conclusion: http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/Pub/HFlabReports/EHARep0904.pdf http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/Pub/HFlabReports/EHARep0904.pd... See page 29 especially, and the graphs starting on page 19.

AlexC04 15y ago
Wow. You're right. Even as early on as the abstract, the "conclusion" of the study seems to be the complete opposite of what I think is more accurately described as a "policy document" --- > This report describes results for a study of electric height-adjustable worksurfaces (EHAWs) conducted in two companies. A total of 33 computer workers from the two companies worked at fixed-height worksurfaces (FHWs) and then at EHAWs for between 4 and 6 weeks. Participants completed extensive survey questionnaires immediately before and then 4-6 weeks after using the EHAWs. Results showed significant decreases in the severity of musculoskeletal discomfort for most upper body regions. In the EHAW condition daily discomfort ratings were lower in the afternoon and productivity ratings improved. Written comments about the EHAWs generally were positive. There was a strong preference for using the EHAWs. Implications are discussed. *significant decreases in the severity of musculoskeletal discomfort *daily discomfort ratings were lower *productivity ratings improved *strong preference for using the EHAWs Corporate policy is often based on more than just study results. In this case, maybe the internal ergonomics department looked at the cost associated with outfitting everyone's desk with electric motors and decided against officially declaring them a good thing. Thanks for reading the original source. I had a bad "feeling" about the article, I know it's on a Cornell website, but it doesn't come across as an actual study of any sort.
zellyn 15y ago
The ergonomics department's conclusion seems much cheaper for them, though...
niels_olson 15y ago
In addition to poo-pooing their own study, as a physician, I was concerned about the statement that atherosclerotic disease increased 9 times in standing. here's that study. The reality is in the Tables 2 and 3: it only comes out as a factor if you already have the disease, even after controlling for physical labor, psychosocial factors, income, behavior, and biology, standing is unrelated. http://www.sjweh.fi/download.php?abstract_id=536&file_nro=1 http://www.sjweh.fi/download.php?abstract_id=536&file_nr... Basically, I don't think this would change my advice to a patient one way or another, and my default advise is "stand more, walk more, please do something besides sit on your butt all day." For patients with symptomatic atherosclerosis, their beds are made already.

by raldi 15y ago

AlexC04 15y ago

Wow. You're right. Even as early on as the abstract, the "conclusion" of the study seems to be the complete opposite of what I think is more accurately described as a "policy document" --- > This report describes results for a study of electric height-adjustable worksurfaces (EHAWs) conducted in two companies. A total of 33 computer workers from the two companies worked at fixed-height worksurfaces (FHWs) and then at EHAWs for between 4 and 6 weeks. Participants completed extensive survey questionnaires immediately before and then 4-6 weeks after using the EHAWs. Results showed significant decreases in the severity of musculoskeletal discomfort for most upper body regions. In the EHAW condition daily discomfort ratings were lower in the afternoon and productivity ratings improved. Written comments about the EHAWs generally were positive. There was a strong preference for using the EHAWs. Implications are discussed. *significant decreases in the severity of musculoskeletal discomfort *daily discomfort ratings were lower *productivity ratings improved *strong preference for using the EHAWs Corporate policy is often based on more than just study results. In this case, maybe the internal ergonomics department looked at the cost associated with outfitting everyone's desk with electric motors and decided against officially declaring them a good thing. Thanks for reading the original source. I had a bad "feeling" about the article, I know it's on a Cornell website, but it doesn't come across as an actual study of any sort.

zellyn 15y ago

The ergonomics department's conclusion seems much cheaper for them, though...

niels_olson 15y ago

In addition to poo-pooing their own study, as a physician, I was concerned about the statement that atherosclerotic disease increased 9 times in standing. here's that study. The reality is in the Tables 2 and 3: it only comes out as a factor if you already have the disease, even after controlling for physical labor, psychosocial factors, income, behavior, and biology, standing is unrelated. http://www.sjweh.fi/download.php?abstract_id=536&file_nro=1 http://www.sjweh.fi/download.php?abstract_id=536&file_nr... Basically, I don't think this would change my advice to a patient one way or another, and my default advise is "stand more, walk more, please do something besides sit on your butt all day." For patients with symptomatic atherosclerosis, their beds are made already.