5 ms·

While there may not be evidence for it the amount of positve anecdotal stories seem to consistently say its better than sitting at a desk all day long.

mistercow 13y ago
This is unfortunately a perfect situation where anecdotes are not very valuable, as can be seen by the fact that the same pattern can be observed with obvious nonsense like hologram patches and magnetic bracelets. We see a typically less gullible set of subjects for these anecdotes, but that can unfortunately be explained entirely by the more plausible sounding hypothesis. I'll dispense with the full Bayesian treatment here, but what we have here is a case of the base rate fallacy (although not the form that is usually discussed): failing to account for the prior probability of the evidence. That is, we have some evidence, which is that the anecdotes we see are largely in favor of standing desks being helpful, and we need to account for how likely that evidence is regardless of whether standing desks are helpful. Unfortunately, as our friends with the magnetic bracelets demonstrate, that probability turns out to be very high. If something works, we see overwhelmingly positive anecdotes. If it doesn't work, we see overwhelmingly positive anecdotes. Why might this be? Well, for one thing, there is sensitivity to placebo effects, because have purely qualitative phenomena that are being reported only subjectively. But even stronger is a selection bias that has to do with people's behavior in reporting and reading. Someone is unlikely to write about their experiences publicly who tries a standing desk for a while, finds no significant benefit, and goes back to a sitting desk. She won't find it interesting to talk about, and she may also be self-conscious that she didn't do it right, and would be inviting criticism. After all "I tried X and it didn't work" is, on some level, an admission of personal failure, and people aren't particularly prone to those. And if she does write it up, her write-up isn't likely to get all that much attention because "X didn't work for me" isn't a particularly interesting story. But one who finds the standing desk to be a miracle cure for all of her problems is relatively likely to write about it, and people will take notice, because "making a simple lifestyle change improved my quality of life" is an attention getter.
- IsaacL 13y ago
  You're right, but that's still not an argument against trying a standing desk. If some people find them useful, and some don't, and assuming the cost of trying it is low, the rational thing to do is not to wait around until enough meta-studies are written for you to make a completely informed decision, but simply to try it out for yourself and see how you like it.
  - mistercow 13y ago
    Sure, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise, but correctly evaluating the situation is still important. The cost/benefit does require evaluating the benefits, and the benefits actually play into the costs as well. If being sedentary is harmful and standing all day isn't a good solution, then it would be harmful to adopt a standing desk instead of exercising. For my part, my week with a standing desk just led to upper back pain (which is not unusual for me, but I am generally able to avoid).
- icpmacdo 13y ago
  One of the points was about how he noticed his leg muscles growing, wouldent this be a way to quantify at least one positive aspect.
  - mistercow 13y ago
    Yes there would, and that would be one of the more likely effects. But I have not seen an anecdote where someone actually did measure their muscles.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
toasterlovin 13y ago
Having tried standing, I can tell you that I found it to be rather uncomfortable and unsettling. Standing upright is, in my opinion, a transition state. That is, you normally only stand upright in between walking and/or sitting. So, when I'm standing at a desk, I desperately want to be moving to the next state. Physically, this works out okay for mousing tasks, since those are one handed and offer a large degree of freedom. However, it just doesn't work for two handed tasks, like programming or writing, which anchor both of your arms, because your arms are critical for balance and, thus, movement. I also found that this desperation to move around while standing affected me mentally. That is, when standing, I was fine doing short, low-attention tasks like responding to email or IM, since I coud move a little between each task. However, for longer tasks (again, like programming or writing) I found this to be maddening. I felt as if I was constantly being tugged and distracted by this urge to move.

mistercow 13y ago

This is unfortunately a perfect situation where anecdotes are not very valuable, as can be seen by the fact that the same pattern can be observed with obvious nonsense like hologram patches and magnetic bracelets. We see a typically less gullible set of subjects for these anecdotes, but that can unfortunately be explained entirely by the more plausible sounding hypothesis. I'll dispense with the full Bayesian treatment here, but what we have here is a case of the base rate fallacy (although not the form that is usually discussed): failing to account for the prior probability of the evidence. That is, we have some evidence, which is that the anecdotes we see are largely in favor of standing desks being helpful, and we need to account for how likely that evidence is regardless of whether standing desks are helpful. Unfortunately, as our friends with the magnetic bracelets demonstrate, that probability turns out to be very high. If something works, we see overwhelmingly positive anecdotes. If it doesn't work, we see overwhelmingly positive anecdotes. Why might this be? Well, for one thing, there is sensitivity to placebo effects, because have purely qualitative phenomena that are being reported only subjectively. But even stronger is a selection bias that has to do with people's behavior in reporting and reading. Someone is unlikely to write about their experiences publicly who tries a standing desk for a while, finds no significant benefit, and goes back to a sitting desk. She won't find it interesting to talk about, and she may also be self-conscious that she didn't do it right, and would be inviting criticism. After all "I tried X and it didn't work" is, on some level, an admission of personal failure, and people aren't particularly prone to those. And if she does write it up, her write-up isn't likely to get all that much attention because "X didn't work for me" isn't a particularly interesting story. But one who finds the standing desk to be a miracle cure for all of her problems is relatively likely to write about it, and people will take notice, because "making a simple lifestyle change improved my quality of life" is an attention getter.

IsaacL 13y ago
You're right, but that's still not an argument against trying a standing desk. If some people find them useful, and some don't, and assuming the cost of trying it is low, the rational thing to do is not to wait around until enough meta-studies are written for you to make a completely informed decision, but simply to try it out for yourself and see how you like it.
- mistercow 13y ago
  Sure, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise, but correctly evaluating the situation is still important. The cost/benefit does require evaluating the benefits, and the benefits actually play into the costs as well. If being sedentary is harmful and standing all day isn't a good solution, then it would be harmful to adopt a standing desk instead of exercising. For my part, my week with a standing desk just led to upper back pain (which is not unusual for me, but I am generally able to avoid).
icpmacdo 13y ago
One of the points was about how he noticed his leg muscles growing, wouldent this be a way to quantify at least one positive aspect.
- mistercow 13y ago
  Yes there would, and that would be one of the more likely effects. But I have not seen an anecdote where someone actually did measure their muscles.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

toasterlovin 13y ago

Having tried standing, I can tell you that I found it to be rather uncomfortable and unsettling. Standing upright is, in my opinion, a transition state. That is, you normally only stand upright in between walking and/or sitting. So, when I'm standing at a desk, I desperately want to be moving to the next state. Physically, this works out okay for mousing tasks, since those are one handed and offer a large degree of freedom. However, it just doesn't work for two handed tasks, like programming or writing, which anchor both of your arms, because your arms are critical for balance and, thus, movement. I also found that this desperation to move around while standing affected me mentally. That is, when standing, I was fine doing short, low-attention tasks like responding to email or IM, since I coud move a little between each task. However, for longer tasks (again, like programming or writing) I found this to be maddening. I felt as if I was constantly being tugged and distracted by this urge to move.